Federal Register Vol. 83, No.9,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 9 (January 12, 2018)

Page Range1511-2028
FR Document

83_FR_9
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 1606 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 1513 - Supporting Our Veterans During Their Transition From Uniformed Service to Civilian LifePDF
83 FR 1635 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 1511 - Supporting Broadband Tower Facilities in Rural America on Federal Properties Managed by the Department of the InteriorPDF
83 FR 1517 - Rules of Practice and Procedure; Rules of Practice and Procedure in Adjudicatory Proceedings; Civil Money Penalty Inflation AdjustmentsPDF
83 FR 1657 - Notice of Inflation Adjustments for Civil Money PenaltiesPDF
83 FR 1654 - Penalty Inflation Adjustments for Civil Monetary PenaltiesPDF
83 FR 1556 - National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) and Independent Living Programs, Outdated, Superseded RegulationsPDF
83 FR 1556 - End Use Certificates (EUCs)PDF
83 FR 1655 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Borrego Pipeline Presidential Permit Application, Webb County, TexasPDF
83 FR 1612 - Proposed CERCLA Cost Recovery Settlement for Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, In or About Essex and Hudson Counties, New JerseyPDF
83 FR 1609 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Revise Collection Numbers 3038-0052 and 3038-0074, Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets, and Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution FacilitiesPDF
83 FR 1548 - Performance of Certain Functions by the National Futures Association With Respect to the Receipt and Processing of Exchange Disciplinary and Access Denial Action InformationPDF
83 FR 1538 - Technical Amendments to Rules on Registration and Review of Exchange Disciplinary, Access Denial, or Other Adverse ActionsPDF
83 FR 1656 - Actions Taken at December 8, 2017, MeetingPDF
83 FR 1608 - Foreign-Trade Zone 49-Newark/Elizabeth, New Jersey; Application for Expansion of Subzone 49C; E.R. Squibb & Sons, LLC; New Brunswick, New JerseyPDF
83 FR 1661 - Notice of Open Public HearingPDF
83 FR 1565 - Wireless Emergency Alerts; Emergency Alert SystemPDF
83 FR 1628 - Filing of Plats of Survey: IdahoPDF
83 FR 1611 - Record of Decision for the F-35A Operational Beddown-Pacific, Eielson Air Force Base, AlaskaPDF
83 FR 1566 - Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful RobocallsPDF
83 FR 1614 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
83 FR 1577 - Service Rules Governing Narrowband Operations in the 769-775/799-805 MHz BandsPDF
83 FR 1613 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
83 FR 1614 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
83 FR 1612 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 1628 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Recreation Visitor Use SurveyPDF
83 FR 1604 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to TexasPDF
83 FR 1559 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to TexasPDF
83 FR 1624 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Notice of Appeal or MotionPDF
83 FR 1621 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 1622 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 1623 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 1623 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 1622 - Fogarty International Center; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 1623 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 1608 - Foreign-Trade Zone 186-Waterville, Maine; Application for Production Authority; Flemish Master Weavers; Subzone 186A; Invitation for Public Comment on Additional InformationPDF
83 FR 1607 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 40-Cleveland, Ohio; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Swagelok Company (Valve Component Parts); Solon, Willoughby Hills, Highland Heights, and Strongsville, OhioPDF
83 FR 1616 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
83 FR 1616 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 1644 - Harbor Funds and Harbor Capital Advisors, Inc.PDF
83 FR 1605 - Black Hills National Forest Advisory BoardPDF
83 FR 1559 - Changes in Requirements for Collective Trademarks and Service Marks, Collective Membership Marks, and Certification Marks; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 1626 - Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System, Santa Fe County, New MexicoPDF
83 FR 1605 - National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning RulePDF
83 FR 1636 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on APR1400; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 1609 - Procurement List; Proposed AdditionsPDF
83 FR 1609 - Procurement List; DeletionsPDF
83 FR 1599 - Safety Zone; Cape Fear River, NCPDF
83 FR 1597 - Special Local Regulation; Chesapeake Bay, between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MDPDF
83 FR 1656 - Elkhart & Western Railroad Co.-Acquisition and Operation Exemption-Line of CSX Transportation, Inc. Between Monon and Monticello, in White County, Ind.PDF
83 FR 1619 - Clarification of Orphan Designation of Drugs and Biologics for Pediatric Subpopulations of Common Diseases; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
83 FR 1552 - Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment-Alcoholic Beverage Labeling ActPDF
83 FR 1659 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple IRS Information Collection RequestsPDF
83 FR 1550 - Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation AdjustmentsPDF
83 FR 1611 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 1647 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Fees for Certain Market Data Products on the Exchange's Equity Options PlatformPDF
83 FR 1641 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
83 FR 1646 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Market Makers' Regulatory FeesPDF
83 FR 1639 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.13, CBOE Hybrid System Automatic Execution FeaturePDF
83 FR 1636 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Establish a Nonstandard Expirations Pilot ProgramPDF
83 FR 1643 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 6.12, Order and Quote Execution and PriorityPDF
83 FR 1651 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Minimum Order Size for the Floor Broker Guarantee Provided in BOX Rule 7600(f)PDF
83 FR 1555 - Adjustment of Civil Penalties for InflationPDF
83 FR 1618 - Determining Whether To Submit an Abbreviated New Drug Application or 505(b)(2) Application; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability; Reopening of the Comment PeriodPDF
83 FR 1620 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; PROACT ADJUSTABLE CONTINENCE THERAPY FOR MENPDF
83 FR 1519 - Rules of Practice and ProcedurePDF
83 FR 1655 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Romance and Reason: Islamic Transformations of the Classical Past” ExhibitionPDF
83 FR 1606 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
83 FR 1634 - Request for InformationPDF
83 FR 1525 - Civil Penalty Inflation AdjustmentsPDF
83 FR 1625 - U.S. Coral Reef Task Force; Public Meeting and Public CommentPDF
83 FR 1537 - Amendment of Class D Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Fort Eustis, VAPDF
83 FR 1651 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 1584 - Proposed Revocation and Amendment of Class E Airspace, Philipsburg, PAPDF
83 FR 1630 - National Fall Safety Stand-Down To Prevent Falls in Construction; Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) RequirementsPDF
83 FR 1633 - Cotton Dust Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) RequirementsPDF
83 FR 1632 - Telecommunications; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) RequirementsPDF
83 FR 1629 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Numbers Under the Paperwork Reduction ActPDF
83 FR 1660 - Debt Management Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 1582 - Proposed Modification of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes in the Vicinity of Richmond, INPDF
83 FR 1515 - Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation for Fiscal Year 2018PDF
83 FR 1553 - Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying BenefitsPDF
83 FR 1535 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
83 FR 1586 - Administrative Manual and Special Regulations Regarding Natural Gas Development Activities; Additional Clarifying AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 1527 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
83 FR 1579 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
83 FR 1532 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. AirplanesPDF
83 FR 1529 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
83 FR 1602 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Montana; Revisions to East Helena Lead SIPPDF
83 FR 2028 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
83 FR 2022 - Regulatory Flexibility AgendaPDF
83 FR 2018 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
83 FR 2014 - Semiannual Regulatory Flexibility AgendaPDF
83 FR 1980 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions-Fall 2017PDF
83 FR 1974 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
83 FR 1950 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
83 FR 1968 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
83 FR 1964 - Regulatory Flexibility AgendaPDF
83 FR 1940 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
83 FR 1944 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
83 FR 1932 - Fall 2017 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
83 FR 1928 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
83 FR 1926 - Semiannual Agenda and Fiscal Year 2017 Regulatory PlanPDF
83 FR 1898 - Department Regulatory and Deregulatory Agenda; Semiannual SummaryPDF
83 FR 1894 - Semiannual Agenda of RegulationsPDF
83 FR 1890 - Regulatory AgendaPDF
83 FR 1860 - Regulatory AgendaPDF
83 FR 1886 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
83 FR 1882 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
83 FR 1872 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
83 FR 1854 - Fall 2017 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
83 FR 1832 - Fall 2017 Semiannual Agenda of RegulationsPDF
83 FR 1664 - Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions-Fall 2017PDF
83 FR 1850 - Improving Government Regulations; Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
83 FR 1824 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, Fall 2017PDF

Issue

83 9 Friday, January 12, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1824-1829 2017-28205
AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Records of Decisions: F-35A Operational Beddown—Pacific, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, 1611 2018-00458 Alcohol Tobacco Tax Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau RULES Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment-Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act, 1552-1553 2018-00417 Architectural Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1928-1929 2017-28233 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection RULES Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustments, 1525-1527 2018-00399 PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1968-1972 2017-28241 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, 1616-1617 2018-00432 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 1606 2018-00631 Coast Guard Coast Guard PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Cape Fear River, NC, 1599-1602 2018-00421 Special Local Regulations: Chesapeake Bay, between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD, 1597-1599 2018-00420 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Patent and Trademark Office

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1832-1848 2017-28208
Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 1609 2018-00422 2018-00423 Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission RULES Performance of Certain Functions by the National Futures Association With Respect to the Receipt and Processing of Exchange Disciplinary and Access Denial Action Information, 1548-1550 2018-00468 Technical Amendments to Rules on Registration and Review of Exchange Disciplinary, Access Denial or Other Adverse Actions, 1538-1548 2018-00467 PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1964-1965 2017-28240 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets, and Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 1609-1611 2018-00469 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency RULES Rules of Practice and Procedure: Rules of Practice and Procedure in Adjudicatory Proceedings; Civil Money Penalty Inflation Adjustments, 1517-1519 2018-00536 NOTICES Inflation Adjustments for Civil Money Penalties, 1657-1659 2018-00521 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1974-1977 2017-28243 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

RULES End Use Certificates, 1556 2018-00473 PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1850-1851, 1950-1961 2017-28206 2017-28242
Delaware Delaware River Basin Commission PROPOSED RULES Administrative Manual and Special Regulations Regarding Natural Gas Development Activities; Additional Clarifying Amendments, 1586-1596 2018-00344 Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance; Petitions, 1606-1607 2018-00401 Education Department Education Department RULES National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Independent Living Programs, Outdated, Superseded Regulations, 1556-1558 2018-00475 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1854-1857 2017-28209
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Delegation of Authority to Texas, 1559-1565 2018-00447 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Montana; Revisions to East Helena Lead SIP, 1602-1604 2018-00114 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Delegation of Authority to Texas, 1604 2018-00448 Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1932-1938 2017-28234 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Weekly Receipts, 1612-1613 2018-00450 Proposed CERCLA Cost Recovery Settlements: Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, In or About Essex and Hudson Counties, NJ, 1612 2018-00471 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 1527-1529, 1535-1537 2018-00343 2018-00345 Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes, 1532-1535 2018-00339 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 1529-1532 2018-00256 Class D Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Amendments: Fort Eustis, VA, 1537-1538 2018-00397 PROPOSED RULES Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Modifications: Vicinity of Richmond, IN, 1582-1584 2018-00376 Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 1579-1582 2018-00342 Class E Airspace; Revocation and Amendments: Philipsburg, PA, 1584-1586 2018-00395 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, 1566-1577 2018-00457 Service Rules Governing Narrowband Operations in the 769-775/799-805 MHz Bands, 1577-1578 2018-00454 Wireless Emergency Alerts: Emergency Alert System, 1565-1566 2018-00463 PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1980-2011 2017-28244 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 1613-1616 2018-00452 2018-00453 2018-00455 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation RULES Rules of Practice and Procedure, 1519-1525 2018-00403 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments, 1550-1552 2018-00415 NOTICES Combined Filings, 1611-1612 2018-00414 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 2014-2015 2017-28245 NOTICES Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 1616 2018-00433 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Determinations of Regulatory Review Periods for Purposes of Patent Extensions: PROACT ADJUSTABLE CONTINENCE THERAPY FOR MEN, 1620-1621 2018-00404 Guidance: Clarification of Orphan Designation of Drugs and Biologics for Pediatric Subpopulations of Common Diseases, 1619-1620 2018-00418 Determining Whether To Submit an Abbreviated New Drug Application or 505(b)(2) Application, 1618-1619 2018-00405 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: Flemish Master Weavers; Foreign-Trade Zone 186; Waterville, ME, 1608 2018-00437 Swagelok Co.; Foreign-Trade Zone 40; Cleveland, OH, 1607-1608 2018-00436 Subzone Expansions; Applications: E.R. Squibb and Sons, LLC, Foreign-Trade Zone 49, Newark/Elizabeth, NJ, 1608 2018-00435 E.R. Squibb and Sons, LLC; Foreign-Trade Zone 49, Newark/Elizabeth, NJ, 1608-1609 2018-00465 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board, 1605-1606 2018-00429 National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule, 1605 2018-00426 General Services General Services Administration PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1940-1942, 1950-1961 2017-28236 2017-28242 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1860-1870 2017-28220
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1872-1879 2017-28212
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1882-1883 2017-28214 Interior Interior Department See

Land Management Bureau

See

Reclamation Bureau

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda; Regulatory Plan, 1886-1887 2017-28216 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System, Santa Fe County, NM, 1626-1628 2018-00427 Meetings: Coral Reef Task Force, 1625-1626 2018-00398
Justice Department Justice Department PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1890-1891 2017-28223 Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1894-1895 2017-28225
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Plats of Survey: Idaho, 1628 2018-00459 Management Management and Budget Office NOTICES Requests for Information: Current and Emerging Techniques for Linking and Analyzing Combined Data, etc., 1634-1635 2018-00400 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1950-1961 2017-28242 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 1623-1624 2018-00439 Fogarty International Center Advisory Board, 1622 2018-00440 National Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, 1623 2018-00443 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 1623 2018-00441 2018-00442 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1621-1622 2018-00444 2018-00445 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation for Fiscal Year 2018, 1515-1517 2018-00368 PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 2018-2020 2017-28246 NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on APR1400, 1636 2018-00424 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 1635-1636 2018-00629 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 1629-1630 2018-00391 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Cotton Dust Standard, 1633-1634 2018-00393 National Fall Safety Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in Construction, 1630-1632 2018-00394 Telecommunications, 1632-1633 2018-00392 Patent Patent and Trademark Office RULES Changes in Requirements for Collective Trademarks and Service Marks, Collective Membership Marks, and Certification Marks; Correction, 1559 2018-00428 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation RULES Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation, 1555-1556 2018-00406 Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans: Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits, 1553-1555 2018-00348 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Veterans; Support During Transition From Uniformed Service to Civilian Life (EO 13822), 1513-1514 2018-00630 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Broadband Power Facilities in Rural America; Deployment on Department of the Interior Properties (Memorandum of January 8, 2018), 1511-1512 2018-00628 Reclamation Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Recreation Visitor Use Survey, 1628-1629 2018-00449 Regulatory Regulatory Information Service Center PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda; Regulatory Plan, 1664-1821 2017-28207 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 2022-2026 2017-28247 NOTICES Applications: Harbor Funds and Harbor Capital Advisors, Inc., 1644-1646 2018-00431 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BOX Options Exchange LLC, 1651 2018-00407 Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc., 1643-1644 2018-00408 Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., 1647-1651 2018-00413 Cboe Exchange, Inc., 1639-1642 2018-00410 2018-00412 Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, 1646-1647 2018-00411 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 1636-1639 2018-00409 Small Business Small Business Administration PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1944-1948 2017-28235 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 1651-1654 2018-00396 Penalty Inflation Adjustments for Civil Monetary Penalties, 1654-1655 2018-00487 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Romance and Reason: Islamic Transformations of the Classical Past, 1655 2018-00402 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Borrego Pipeline Presidential Permit Application, Webb County, TX, 1655-1656 2018-00472 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 2028 2017-28248 NOTICES Acquisitions and Operation Exemptions: Elkhart and Western Railroad Co.; Line of CSX Transportation, Inc. between Monon and Monticello, in White County, IN, 1656 2018-00419 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Meetings: Actions Taken at December 8, 2017, 1656-1657 2018-00466 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1898-1923 2017-28231
Treasury Treasury Department See

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

See

Comptroller of the Currency

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 1926 2017-28232 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 1659-1660 2018-00416 Meetings: Debt Management Advisory Committee, 1660-1661 2018-00384
U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Notice of Appeal or Motion, 1624-1625 2018-00446 U.S. China U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission NOTICES Public Hearings, 1661 2018-00464 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Regulatory Information Service Center, 1664-1821 2017-28207 Part III Agriculture Department, 1824-1829 2017-28205 Part IV Commerce Department, 1832-1848 2017-28208 Part V Defense Department, 1850-1851 2017-28206 Part VI Energy Department, 1854-1857 2017-28209 Part VII Health and Human Services Department, 1860-1870 2017-28220 Part VIII Homeland Security Department, 1872-1879 2017-28212 Part IX Housing and Urban Development Department, 1882-1883 2017-28214 Part X Interior Department, 1886-1887 2017-28216 Part XI Justice Department, 1890-1891 2017-28223 Part XII Labor Department, 1894-1895 2017-28225 Part XIII Transportation Department, 1898-1923 2017-28231 Part XIV Treasury Department, 1926 2017-28232 Part XV Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1928-1929 2017-28233 Part XVI Environmental Protection Agency, 1932-1938 2017-28234 Part XVII General Services Administration, 1940-1942 2017-28236 Part XVIII Small Business Administration, 1944-1948 2017-28235 Part XIX Defense Department, 1950-1961 2017-28242 General Services Administration, 1950-1961 2017-28242 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1950-1961 2017-28242 Part XX Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1964-1965 2017-28240 Part XXI Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1968-1972 2017-28241 Part XXII Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1974-1977 2017-28243 Part XXIII Federal Communications Commission, 1980-2011 2017-28244 Part XXIV Federal Reserve System, 2014-2015 2017-28245 Part XXV Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018-2020 2017-28246 Part XXVI Securities and Exchange Commission, 2022-2026 2017-28247 Part XXVII Surface Transportation Board, 2028 2017-28248 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.

83 9 Friday, January 12, 2018 Rules and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 2 and 13 [NRC-2016-0166] RIN 3150-AJ83 Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation for Fiscal Year 2018 AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to adjust the maximum Civil Monetary Penalties (CMPs) it can assess under statutes enforced by the agency. These changes are mandated by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (FCPIAA), as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Improvements Act). The NRC is amending its regulations to adjust the maximum CMP for a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), or any regulation or order issued under the AEA from $285,057 to $290,875 per violation, per day. Additionally, the NRC is amending provisions concerning program fraud civil penalties by adjusting the maximum CMP under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act from $10,957 to $11,181 for each false claim or statement.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on January 15, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0166 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0166. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eric Michel, Office of the General Counsel, telephone: 301-415-0932, email: [email protected], U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Discussion III. Rulemaking Procedure IV. Section-by-Section Analysis V. Regulatory Analysis VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality VIII. Plain Writing IX. National Environmental Policy Act X. Paperwork Reduction Act XI. Congressional Review Act I. Background

Congress passed the FCPIAA in 1990 to allow for regular adjustment for inflation of CMPs, maintain the deterrent effect of such penalties and promote compliance with the law, and improve the collection of CMPs by the Federal government (Pub L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note). Pursuant to this authority, and as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-34, 110 Stat. 1321-373), the NRC increased via rulemaking the CMP amounts for violations of the AEA (codified at § 2.205 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)) and Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (codified at § 13.3) on four occasions between 1996 and 2008.1

1 Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation, 73 FR 54,671 (Sept. 23, 2008); Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation, 69 FR 62,393 (Oct. 26, 2004); Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation; Miscellaneous Administrative Changes, 65 FR 59,270 (Oct. 4, 2000); Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation, 61 FR 53,554 (Oct. 11, 1996). An adjustment was not performed in 2012 because the FCPIAA at the time required agencies to round their CMP amounts to the nearest multiple of $1,000 or $10,000, depending on the size of the CMP amount, and the 2012 adjustments based on the statutory formula were small enough that no adjustment resulted.

On November 2, 2015, Congress amended the FCPIAA through the 2015 Improvements Act (Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599). The 2015 Improvements Act required that the head of each agency perform an initial “catch-up” adjustment via rulemaking, adjusting the CMPs enforced by that agency according to the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) between the month of October 2015 and the month of October of the calendar year when the CMP amount was last established by Congress. The NRC performed this catch-up rulemaking on July 1, 2016 (81 FR 43019).

The 2015 Improvements Act also requires that the head of each agency continue to adjust CMP amounts, rounded to the nearest dollar, on an annual basis. Specifically, each CMP is to be adjusted based on the percentage change between the CPI for the previous month of October, and the CPI for the month of October in the year preceding that. The NRC most recently adjusted its civil penalties for inflation according to this statutory formula on January 24, 2017 (82 FR 8133). This year's adjustment is based on the percentage change between the CPI for October 2017 and October 2016.

II. Discussion

Section 234 of the AEA limits civil penalties for violations of the AEA to $100,000 per day, per violation (42 U.S.C. 2282). However, as discussed in Section I, “Background,” of this document, the NRC has increased this amount several times since 1996 per the FCPIAA, as amended. Using the formula in the 2015 Improvements Act, the $285,057 amount last established in January 2017 will increase by 2.041%, resulting in a new CMP amount of $290,875. This is based on the percentage change between the October 2017 CPI (246.663) and the October 2016 CPI (241.729). Therefore, the NRC is amending § 2.205 to reflect a new maximum CMP under the AEA in the amount of $290,875 per day, per violation. This represents an increase of $5,818.

Monetary penalties under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act were established in 1986 at $5,000 per claim (Pub. L. 99-509, 100 Stat. 1938; 31 U.S.C. 3802). The NRC has also adjusted this amount (currently set at $10,957) multiple times pursuant to the FCPIAA, as amended, since 1996. Using the formula in the 2015 Improvements Act, the $10,957 amount last established in January 2017 will also increase by 2.041%, resulting in a new CMP amount of $11,181. Therefore, the NRC is amending § 13.3 to reflect a new maximum CMP amount of $11,181 per claim or statement. This represents an increase of $224.

As permitted by the 2015 Improvements Act, the NRC may apply these increased CMP amounts to any penalties assessed by the agency after the effective date of this rulemaking (January 15, 2018), regardless of whether the associated violation occurred before or after this date (Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 600; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note). The NRC assesses civil penalty amounts for violations of the AEA based on the class of licensee and severity of the violation, in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy (ADAMS Accession No. ML16197A561). A corresponding update to the NRC Enforcement Policy to reflect the updated CMP amount in § 2.205 will be published in the near future.

III. Rulemaking Procedure

The 2015 Improvements Act expressly exempts this final rule from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, by directing agencies to adjust CMPs for inflation “notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code” (Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note). As such, this final rule is being issued without prior public notice or opportunity for public comment, with an immediate effective date.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

Paragraph (j) in § 2.205 is revised by replacing “$285,057” with “$290,875”.

Paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (b)(1)(ii) in § 13.3 are revised by replacing “$10,957” with “$11,181”.

V. Regulatory Analysis

This final rule adjusts for inflation the maximum CMPs the NRC may assess under the AEA and under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986. The formula for determining the amount of the adjustment is mandated by Congress in the FCPIAA, as amended by the 2015 Improvements Act (codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note). Congress passed this legislation on the basis of its findings that the power to impose monetary civil penalties is important to deterring violations of Federal law and furthering the policy goals of Federal laws and regulations. Congress has also found that inflation diminishes the impact of these penalties and their effect. The principal purposes of this legislation are to provide for adjustment of civil monetary penalties for inflation, maintain the deterrent effect of civil monetary penalties, and promote compliance with the law. Therefore, these are the anticipated impacts of this rulemaking. Direct monetary impacts fall only upon licensees or other persons subjected to NRC enforcement for violations of the AEA and regulations and orders issued under the AEA (§ 2.205), or those licensees or persons subjected to liability pursuant to the provisions of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801-3812) and the NRC's implementing regulations (10 CFR part 13).

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to regulations for which a Federal agency is not required by law, including the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C 553(b), to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 604). As discussed in this notice under Section III., “Rulemaking Procedure,” the NRC has determined that this final rule is exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and notice and comment need not be provided. Accordingly, the NRC also determines that the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply to this final rule.

VII. Backfit and Issue Finality

The NRC has not prepared a backfit analysis for this final rule. This final rule does not involve any provision that would impose a backfit, nor is it inconsistent with any issue finality provision, as those terms are defined in 10 CFR chapter I. As mandated by Congress, this final rule increases CMP amounts for violations of already-existing NRC regulations and requirements. This final rule does not modify any licensee systems, structures, components, designs, approvals, or procedures required for the construction or operation of any facility.

VIII. Plain Writing

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).

IX. National Environmental Policy Act

The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.

X. Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule does not contain a collection of information as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

XI. Congressional Review Act

This final rule is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 2

Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct material, Classified information, Confidential business information; Freedom of information, Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal.

10 CFR Part 13

Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Fraud, Organization and function (Government agencies), Penalties.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 2 and 13:

PART 2—AGENCY RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 29, 53, 62, 63, 81, 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 189, 191, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2239, 2241, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 206 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5846); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 114(f), 134, 135, 141 (42 U.S.C. 10134(f), 10154, 10155, 10161); Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 552, 553, 554, 557, 558); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

Section 2.205(j) also issued under 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

2. In § 2.205, revise paragraph (j) to read as follows:
§ 2.205 Civil penalties.

(j) Amount. A civil monetary penalty imposed under Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or any other statute within the jurisdiction of the Commission that provides for the imposition of a civil penalty in an amount equal to the amount set forth in Section 234, may not exceed $290,875 for each violation. If any violation is a continuing one, each day of such violation shall constitute a separate violation for the purposes of computing the applicable civil penalty.

PART 13—PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES 3. The authority citation for part 13 continues to read as follows: Authority:

31 U.S.C. 3801 through 3812; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

Section 13.3 also issued under 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. Section 13.13 also issued under 31 U.S.C. 3730.

4. In § 13.3, revise paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
§ 13.3 Basis for civil penalties and assessments.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(iv) Is for payment for the provision of property or services which the person has not provided as claimed, shall be subject, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, to a civil penalty of not more than $11,181 for each such claim.

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) Contains or is accompanied by an express certification or affirmation of the truthfulness and accuracy of the contents of the statement, shall be subject, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, to a civil penalty of not more than $11,181 for each such statement.

Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of December, 2017.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frederick D. Brown, Acting Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2018-00368 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR Parts 19 and 109 [Docket ID OCC-2018-0001] RIN 1557-AE14 Rules of Practice and Procedure; Rules of Practice and Procedure in Adjudicatory Proceedings; Civil Money Penalty Inflation Adjustments AGENCY:

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is amending its rules of practice and procedure for national banks and its rules of practice and procedure in adjudicatory proceedings for Federal savings associations to remove the chart listing the maximum dollar amount of civil money penalties the OCC has authority to assess.

DATES:

This rule is effective on January 12, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kevin Korzeniewski, Counsel, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 649-5490, or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the 1990 Adjustment Act),1 as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Adjustment Act),2 requires Federal agencies to adjust the amount of their civil money penalties (CMPs) 3 for inflation by January 15 of each year, and requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue guidance to Federal agencies not later than December 15 of each year, on implementing the required inflation adjustments.

1 Public Law 101-410, Oct. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 890, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

2 Public Law 114-74, Title VII, section 701(b), Nov. 2, 2015, 129 Stat. 599, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

3 The 2015 Adjustment Act defined a “civil monetary penalty” to mean “any penalty, fine, or other sanction that is for a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law; or has a maximum amount provided for by Federal law; and is assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to Federal law; and is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts.” 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, section 3(2). Thus, a penalty based on another measure, such as a percentage of total assets, need not be adjusted.

On January 27, 2017, the OCC published a final rule amending its rules of practice and procedure for national banks and its rules of practice and procedure in adjudicatory proceedings for Federal savings associations to adjust the maximum amount of each CMP within its jurisdiction to administer for inflation.4 The final rule also changed the method for making subsequent inflation adjustments, consistent with the 2015 Adjustment Act and OMB guidance.5 Specifically, sections 19.240(a) and 109.103(c)(1) of the rule codified the formula for making inflation adjustments for national banks and Federal savings associations, respectively. Sections 19.240(b) and 109.103(c)(2) of the rule provided a chart of penalties applicable during 2017. Sections 19.240(c) and 109.103(c)(3) also provided that notice of the maximum penalties which may be assessed for calendar years after 2017 will be published as a notice in the Federal Register on an annual basis on or before January 15 of each calendar year.6

4 82 FR 8584 (January 27, 2017).

5 See OMB Memorandum M-18-03, “Implementation of the 2018 annual adjustment pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015,” at 4, which permits agencies that have codified the formula to adjust CMPs for inflation to update the penalties through a notice rather than a regulation.

6 To the extent an agency has codified a CMP amount in its regulations, the agency would need to update that amount by regulation. However, if an agency has codified the formula for making the CMP adjustments, then subsequent adjustments can be made solely by notice. See OMB Memorandum M-18-03, “Implementation of the 2018 annual adjustment pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015,” at 4.

II. Description of the Final Rule

Because the OCC will annually publish the maximum amount of CMPs the agency has authority to assess through a notice in the Federal Register, the CMP amounts listed in the charts at 12 CFR 19.240(b) and 109.103(c)(2) are out of date. Therefore, in order to avoid any confusion, the OCC is deleting the charts in sections 19.240(b) and 109.103(c)(2). The OCC is also making technical and conforming amendments in sections 19.240 and 109.103(c) to delete references to those charts, while retaining a description of the formula used to make the inflation adjustments and information on how the OCC will publish notice of the adjustments going forward. A complete list of the maximum amount of CMPs that can be assessed by the OCC during the current calendar year for violations that occurred on or after November 2, 2015, is also being published today in the Federal Register.7

7 Penalties assessed for violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, will be subject to the maximum amounts set forth in the OCC's regulations in effect prior to the enactment of the 2015 Adjustment Act.

III. Regulatory Analysis A. Administrative Procedure Act

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that an agency publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, unless an exception applies. In this case, the OCC finds an exception for good cause that a general notice of proposed rulemaking would be unnecessary, as the only changes in this final rule are technical amendments to remove outdated information regarding the OCC's maximum CMP amounts and update related cross-references.

B. Delayed Effective Date

Section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 8 (RCDRIA) requires that the effective date of new regulations and amendments to regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions shall be the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date the regulations are published in final form. 12 U.S.C. 4802(b)(1). The RCDRIA does not apply to this final rule because the rule does not impose any additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements.

8 12 U.S.C. 4802.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that the agency determine the rule's impact on small entities and consider options to reduce any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).9 Because the 2015 Adjustment Act specifically exempted agencies' annual adjustments from the requirements of the APA,10 the OCC is not issuing a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Therefore, the RFA does not apply to this final rule.

9 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

10 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, section 4(b)(2) (“the head of an agency shall adjust civil money penalties and shall make the adjustment notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code”).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating any rule likely to result in a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more, as adjusted for inflation, in any one year.11 The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act only applies when an agency issues a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Because the OCC is not issuing a general notice of proposed rulemaking, this final rule is not subject to section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

11 2 U.S.C. 1532.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),12 the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless the information collection displays a valid OMB control number. The final rule contains no information collection requirements under the PRA.

12 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

List of Subjects 12 CFR Part 19

Administrative practice and procedure, Crime, Equal access to justice, Investigations, National banks, Penalties, Securities.

12 CFR Part 109

Administrative practice and procedure, Federal savings associations, Penalties.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons set out in the preamble, parts 19 and 109 of chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 19—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 19 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 504, 554-557; 12 U.S.C. 93(b), 93a, 164, 481, 504, 1817, 1818, 1820, 1831m, 1831o, 1832, 1884, 1972, 3102, 3108(a), 3110, 3909, and 4717; 15 U.S.C. 78(h) and (i), 78o-4(c), 78o-5, 78q-1, 78s, 78u, 78u-2, 78u-3, 78w, and 1639e; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 330 and 5321; and 42 U.S.C. 4012a.

2. Section 19.240 is revised to read as follows:
§ 19.240 Inflation adjustments.

(a) Statutory formula to calculate inflation adjustments. The OCC is required by statute to annually adjust for inflation the maximum amount of each civil money penalty within its jurisdiction to administer. The inflation adjustment is calculated by multiplying the maximum dollar amount of the civil money penalty for the previous calendar year by the cost-of-living inflation adjustment multiplier provided annually by the Office of Management and Budget and rounding the total to the nearest dollar.

(b) Notice of inflation adjustments. The OCC will publish notice in the Federal Register of the maximum penalties which may be assessed on an annual basis on or before January 15 of each calendar year based on the formula in paragraph (a) of this section, for penalties assessed on, or after, the date of publication of the most recent notice related to conduct occurring on, or after, November 2, 2015.

PART 109—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN ADJUDICATORY PROCEEDINGS 3. The authority citation for part 109 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 504, 554-557; 12 U.S.C. 1464, 1467, 1467a, 1468, 1817, 1818, 1820(k), 1829(e), 1832, 1884, 1972, 3349, 4717, 5412(b)(2)(B); 15 U.S.C. 78(l), 78o-5, 78u-2, 1639e; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 5321; and 42 U.S.C. 4012a.

4. Section 109.103 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 109.103 Civil money penalties.

(c) Maximum amount of civil money penalties—(1) Statutory formula. The OCC is required by statute to annually adjust for inflation the maximum amount of each civil money penalty within its jurisdiction to administer. The inflation adjustment is calculated by multiplying the maximum dollar amount of the civil money penalty for the previous calendar year by the cost-of-living inflation adjustment multiplier provided annually by the Office of Management and Budget and rounding the total to the nearest dollar.

(2) Notice of inflation adjustments. The OCC will publish notice in the Federal Register of the maximum penalties which may be assessed on an annual basis on, or before, January 15 of each calendar year based on the formula in paragraph (a) of this section, for penalties assessed on, or after, the date of publication of the most recent notice related to conduct occurring on or after November 2, 2015.

Dated: January 9, 2018. Karen Solomon, Acting Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief Counsel, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
[FR Doc. 2018-00536 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Part 308 RIN 3064-AE71 Rules of Practice and Procedure AGENCY:

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The FDIC is adjusting the maximum amount of each civil money penalty (CMP) within its jurisdiction to account for inflation. This action is required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Adjustment Act).

DATES:

This rule is effective January 15, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Seth P. Rosebrock, Supervisory Counsel, Legal Division (202) 898-6609, or Graham N. Rehrig, Senior Attorney, Legal Division (202) 898-3829.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Policy Objectives

The Final Rule changes the maximum limit for CMPs according to inflation as mandated by Congress in the 2015 Adjustment Act.1 The intended effect of annually adjusting maximum civil money penalties in accordance with changes in the Consumer Price Index is to minimize any distortion in the real value of those maximums due to inflation, thereby promoting a more consistent deterrent effect in the structure of CMPs.

1 Public Law 114-74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 584.

II. Background

The FDIC assesses CMPs under section 8(i) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA), 12 U.S.C. 1818, and a variety of other statutes.2 Congress established maximum penalties that could be assessed under these statutes. In many cases, these statutes contain multiple penalty tiers, permitting the assessment of penalties at various levels depending upon the severity of the misconduct at issue.3

2See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(F) (authorizing the FDIC to impose CMPs for violations of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1970 related to prohibited tying arrangements); 15 U.S.C. 78u-2 (authorizing the FDIC to impose CMPs for violations of certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934); 42 U.S.C. 4012a(f) (authorizing the FDIC to impose CMPs for pattern or practice violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act).

3 For example, Section 8(i)(2) of the FDIA, 12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2), provides for three tiers of CMPs, with the size of such CMPs increasing with the gravity of the misconduct.

In 1990, Congress determined that the assessment of CMPs plays “an important role in deterring violations and furthering the policy goals embodied in such laws and regulations” and concluded that “the impact of many civil monetary penalties has been and is diminished due to the effect of inflation.” 4 Consequently, Congress required federal agencies with authority to impose CMPs to periodically adjust by rulemaking the maximum CMPs which these agencies were authorized to impose in order to “maintain the deterrent effect of civil monetary penalties and promote compliance with the law.” 5 Under the 1990 Adjustment Act, the FDIC adjusted its CMP amounts every four years.6

4 Section 2 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (1990 Adjustment Act). Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (amended 2015) (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note).

5Id.

6See, e.g., 77 FR 74573 (Dec. 17, 2012).

In 2015, Congress revised the process by which federal agencies adjust applicable CMPs for inflation.7 Under the 2015 Adjustment Act, the FDIC is required to make annual adjustments for inflation.8 These adjustments apply to all CMPs covered by the 2015 Adjustment Act.9 The 2015 Adjustment Act requires annual adjustments to be made by January 15 of each year.10

7See Public Law 114-74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 584.

8See id. at sec. 701(b).

9See Public Law 101-410, sec. 3(2), 104 Stat. 890 (amended 2015) (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note).

10 Public Law 114-74, sec. 701(b), 129 Stat. 584.

Although the 2015 Adjustment Act increases the maximum penalty that may be assessed under each applicable statute, the FDIC possesses discretion to impose CMP amounts below the maximum level in accordance with the severity of the misconduct at issue. For example, when making a determination as to the appropriate level of a penalty assessed under section 8(i)(2) of the FDIA, 12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2), the FDIC is guided by statutory factors set forth in section 8(i)(2)(G) of the FDIA, 12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)(G), and those factors identified in the Interagency Policy Statement Regarding the Assessment of CMPs by the Federal Financial Institutions Regulatory Agencies. 11 Such factors include, but are not limited to, the gravity and duration of the misconduct, and the intent related to the misconduct.

11 63 FR 30227 (June 3, 1998).

The 2015 Adjustment Act notes that the FDIC “shall adjust [CMPs] and shall make the adjustment notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code” (the Administrative Procedure Act).12 The FDIC, therefore, is not obligated to publish the adjustments through notice-and-comment rulemaking, and the FDIC is publishing the adjustments through a final rule.

12 Public Law 114-74, sec. 701(b), 129 Stat. 584 (emphasis added).

III. Description and Expected Effects of the Final Rule

The Final Rule modifies the maximum limit for CMPs according to inflation as mandated by Congress in the 2015 Adjustment Act. The 2015 Adjustment Act directs federal agencies to follow guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on December 15, 2017 (OMB Guidance), when calculating new maximum penalty levels.13 The adjustments are to be based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U)14 for October 2016 and the October 2017 CPI-U.

13See OMB, Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2018, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, M-18-03 (Dec. 15, 2017), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/M-18-03.pdf (noting that the applicable 2018 CMP-adjustment multiplier is 1.02041).

14 The CPI-U is compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.

Summary of the FDIC's Calculations

During the 12-month period ending October 2017, the CPI-U was reported to have increased by 2.041 percent. In keeping with the OMB Guidance, the FDIC adjusted each of its CMP maximum penalty levels by the inflation factor.15 After applying the adjustment, the FDIC rounded each penalty level to the nearest dollar. In making these calculations, the FDIC consulted with staff from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve System, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to ensure that the FDIC's adjusted figures were consistent with these regulators' respective amounts.

15 Under the 1990 Adjustment Act, adjustments have been made only to CMPs that are for specific dollar amounts or maximums. CMPs that are assessed based upon a fixed percentage of an institution's total assets are not subject to adjustment.

The Adjusted CMP Amounts

The following chart displays the adjusted CMP amounts for each CMP identified in 12 CFR part 308.16 The following chart reflects the maximum CMP amounts that may be assessed after January 15, 2018—the effective date of the 2018 annual adjustment—including assessments whose associated violations occurred on or after November 2, 2015.17

16 As noted previously, the FDIC retains discretion to impose CMPs in amounts below the referenced maximums.

17See OMB Guidance at 4.

Maximum Civil Money Penalty Amounts U.S. Code citation Current maximum CMP
  • (through January 14, 2018)
  • Adjusted maximum CMP
  • (beginning January 15, 2018)
  • 12 U.S.C. 1464(v): Tier One CMP $3,849 $3,928 Tier Two CMP 38,492 39,278 Tier Three CMP 1,924,589 1,963,870 12 U.S.C. 1467(d) 9,623 9,819 12 U.S.C. 1817(a): Tier One CMP 3,849 3,928 Tier Two CMP 38,492 39,278 Tier Three CMP 1,924,589 1,963,870 12 U.S.C. 1817(c): Tier One CMP 3,519 3,591 Tier Two CMP 35,186 35,904 Tier Three CMP 1,759,309 1,795,216 12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2): Tier One CMP 9,623 9,819 Tier Two CMP 48,114 49,096 Tier Three CMP 1,924,589 1,963,870 12 U.S.C. 1820(e)(4) 8,797 8,977 12 U.S.C. 1820(k)(6) 316,566 323,027 12 U.S.C. 1828(a)(3) 120 122 12 U.S.C. 1828(h): For assessments <$10,000 120 122 12 U.S.C. 1829b(j) 20,111 20,521 12 U.S.C. 1832(c) 2,795 2,852 12 U.S.C. 1884 279 285 12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(F): Tier One CMP 9,623 9,819 Tier Two CMP 48,114 49,096 Tier Three CMP 1,924,589 1,963,870 12 U.S.C. 3909(d) 2,394 2,443 15 U.S.C. 78u-2: Tier One CMP (individuals) 9,054 9,239 Tier One CMP (others) 90,535 92,383 Tier Two CMP (individuals) 90,535 92,383 Tier Two CMP (others) 452,677 461,916 Tier Three CMP (individuals) 181,071 184,767 Tier Three penalty (others) 905,353 923,831 15 U.S.C. 1639e(k): First violation 11,053 11,279 Subsequent violations 22,105 22,556 31 U.S.C. 3802 10,957 11,181 42 U.S.C. 4012a(f) 2,090 2,133
    CFR Citation Current maximum amount
  • (through January 14, 2018)
  • New maximum amount
  • (beginning January 15, 2018)
  • 12 CFR 308.132(c)—Late or Misleading Reports of Condition and Income (Call Reports): First Offense: $25 million or more assets: 1 to 15 days late 527 538 16 or more days late 1,056 1,078 Less than $25 million assets 1 to 15 days late 176 180 16 or more days late 352 359 Subsequent Offenses: $25 million or more assets: 1 to 15 days late 879 897 16 or more days late 1,759 1,795
    The Expected Effects of the CMP Adjustments

    These CMP adjustments are expected to minimize any year-to-year distortions in the real value of the CMP maximums. Additionally, these adjustments will promote a more consistent deterrent effect in the structure of CMPs. As previously noted, the FDIC retains discretion to impose CMP amounts below the maximum level. The actual number and size of CMPs assessed in the future will depend on the propensity and severity of the violations committed by banks and institution-affiliated parties, as well as the particular statute that is at issue. Such future violations cannot be reliably forecast. It is expected that the FDIC will continue to exercise its discretion to impose CMPs that are appropriate to their severity.

    The 2015 Adjustment Act will likely result in a minimal increase in administrative costs for the FDIC in order to establish new inflation-adjusted maximum CMPs each year. Because these calculations are relatively simple, the number of labor hours necessary to perform this task is likely to be insignificant relative to total enforcement labor hours for the Corporation.

    IV. Alternatives Considered

    The 2015 Adjustment Act mandates the frequency of the inflation adjustment and the measure of inflation to be used in making these adjustments. This statute also provides that the FDIC is not required to proceed through notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act in making annual CMP adjustments. Therefore, the FDIC has not considered alternatives to the CMP Adjustments.

    V. Request for Comment

    The 2015 Adjustment Act requires the FDIC to adjust its maximum CMP amounts “notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code,” 18 and provides the specific adjustments to be made. Moreover, the CMP Adjustments and the revisions to the CFR are ministerial and technical; therefore, the FDIC is not required to complete a notice-and-comment rulemaking process prior to making the adjustments.

    18 Public Law 114-74, sec. 701(b), 129 Stat. 584.

    VI. Regulatory Analysis Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act

    Section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act 19 generally requires that regulations prescribed by federal banking agencies which impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter unless the regulation is required to take effect on another date pursuant to another act of Congress or the agency determines for good cause that the regulation should become effective on an earlier date.

    19 12 U.S.C. 4802.

    This Final Rule does not impose any new or additional reporting, disclosures, or other requirements on insured depository institutions. Therefore, the Final Rule is not subject to the requirements of this statute.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 20 (RFA) is required only when an agency must publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. As noted above, the FDIC determined that publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking is not necessary for the Final Rule. Accordingly, the RFA does not require an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. Nevertheless, the FDIC considered the likely impact of Final Rule on small entities. From 2011 through 2016, on average, only 1.4 percent of FDIC-supervised institutions were ordered to pay a CMP each year. Accordingly, the FDIC believes that the Final Rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    20 5 U.S.C. 603.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The OMB has determined that the Final Rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA).21 As required by SBREFA, the FDIC will submit the Final Rule and other appropriate reports to Congress and the Government Accountability Office for review.

    21 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.

    The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999: Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

    The FDIC determined that the Final Rule will not affect family wellbeing within the meaning of section 654 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999.22

    22 Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Final Rule does not create any new, or revise any existing, collections of information under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.23 Consequently, no information collection request will be submitted to the OMB for review.

    23 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Plain Language Act

    Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the FDIC to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000.24 Accordingly, the FDIC has attempted to write the Final Rule in clear and comprehensible language.

    24 Public Law 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338 (Nov. 12, 1999).

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 308

    Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Claims, Crime, Equal access to justice, Ex parte communications, Hearing procedure, Lawyers, Penalties, State nonmember banks.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the FDIC amends 12 CFR part 308 as follows:

    PART 308—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 308 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 504, 554-557; 12 U.S.C. 93(b), 164, 505, 1464, 1467(d), 1467a, 1468, 1815(e), 1817, 1818, 1819, 1820, 1828, 1829, 1829(b), 1831i, 1831m(g)(4), 1831o, 1831p-1, 1832(c), 1884(b), 1972, 3102, 3108(a), 3349, 3909, 4717, 5412(b)(2)(C), 5414(b)(3); 15 U.S.C. 78(h) and (i), 78o(c)(4), 78o-4(c), 78o-5, 78q-1, 78s, 78u, 78u-2, 78u-3, 78w, 6801(b), 6805(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 330, 5321; 42 U.S.C. 4012a; Pub. L. 104-134, sec. 31001(s), 110 Stat. 1321; Pub. L. 109-351, 120 Stat. 1966; Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376; Pub. L. 114-74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 584.

    2. Revise § 308.116(b)(4) to read as follows:
    § 308.116 Assessment of penalties.

    (b) * * *

    (4) Adjustment of civil money penalties by the rate of inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. After January 15, 2018, for violations that occurred on or after November 2, 2015:

    (i) Any person who has engaged in a violation as set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall forfeit and pay a civil money penalty of not more than $9,819 for each day the violation continued.

    (ii) Any person who has engaged in a violation, unsafe or unsound practice or breach of fiduciary duty, as set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall forfeit and pay a civil money penalty of not more than $49,096 for each day such violation, practice or breach continued.

    (iii) Any person who has knowingly engaged in a violation, unsafe or unsound practice or breach of fiduciary duty, as set forth in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, shall forfeit and pay a civil money penalty not to exceed:

    (A) In the case of a person other than a depository institution—$1,963,870 per day for each day the violation, practice or breach continued; or

    (B) In the case of a depository institution—an amount not to exceed the lesser of $1,963,870 or one percent of the total assets of such institution for each day the violation, practice or breach continued.

    3. Revise § 308.132(d) to read as follows:
    § 308.132 Assessment of penalties.

    (d) Maximum civil money penalty amounts. Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, after January 15, 2018, for violations that occurred on or after November 2, 2015, the Board of Directors or its designee may assess civil money penalties in the maximum amounts as follows:

    (1) Civil money penalties assessed pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1464(v) for late filing or the submission of false or misleading certified statements by State savings associations. Pursuant to section 5(v) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1464(v)), the Board of Directors or its designee may assess civil money penalties as follows:

    (i) Late filing—Tier One penalties. In cases in which an institution fails to make or publish its Report of Condition and Income (Call Report) within the appropriate time periods, a civil money penalty of not more than $3,928 per day may be assessed where the institution maintains procedures in place reasonably adapted to avoid inadvertent error and the late filing occurred unintentionally and as a result of such error; or the institution inadvertently transmitted a Call Report that is minimally late. For penalties assessed after January 15, 2018, for violations of this paragraph (d)(1)(i) that occurred on or after November 2, 2015, the following maximum Tier One penalty amounts contained in paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section shall apply for each day that the violation continues.

    (A) First offense. Generally, in such cases, the amount assessed shall be $538 per day for each of the first 15 days for which the failure continues, and $1,078 per day for each subsequent day the failure continues, beginning on the sixteenth day. For institutions with less than $25,000,000 in assets, the amount assessed shall be the greater of $180 per day or 1/1000th of the institution's total assets (1/10th of a basis point) for each of the first 15 days for which the failure continues, and $359 or 1/500th of the institution's total assets, 1/5 of a basis point) for each subsequent day the failure continues, beginning on the sixteenth day.

    (B) Subsequent offense. Where the institution has been delinquent in making or publishing its Call Report within the preceding five quarters, the amount assessed for the most current failure shall generally be $897 per day for each of the first 15 days for which the failure continues, and $1,795 per day for each subsequent day the failure continues, beginning on the sixteenth day. For institutions with less than $25,000,000 in assets, those amounts, respectively, shall be 1/500th of the bank's total assets and 1/250th of the institution's total assets.

    (C) Lengthy or repeated violations. The amounts set forth in this paragraph (d)(1)(i) will be assessed on a case-by-case basis where the amount of time of the institution's delinquency is lengthy or the institution has been delinquent repeatedly in making or publishing its Call Reports.

    (D) Waiver. Absent extraordinary circumstances outside the control of the institution, penalties assessed for late filing shall not be waived.

    (ii) Late-filing—Tier Two penalties. Where an institution fails to make or publish its Call Report within the appropriate time period, the Board of Directors or its designee may assess a civil money penalty of not more than $39,278 per day for each day the failure continues.

    (iii) False or misleading reports or information—(A) Tier One penalties. In cases in which an institution submits or publishes any false or misleading Call Report or information, the Board of Directors or its designee may assess a civil money penalty of not more than $3,928 per day for each day the information is not corrected, where the institution maintains procedures in place reasonably adapted to avoid inadvertent error and the violation occurred unintentionally and as a result of such error; or the institution inadvertently transmits a Call Report or information that is false or misleading.

    (B) Tier Two penalties. Where an institution submits or publishes any false or misleading Call Report or other information, the Board of Directors or its designee may assess a civil money penalty of not more than $39,278 per day for each day the information is not corrected.

    (C) Tier Three penalties. Where an institution knowingly or with reckless disregard for the accuracy of any Call Report or information submits or publishes any false or misleading Call Report or other information, the Board of Directors or its designee may assess a civil money penalty of not more than the lesser of $1,963,870 or 1 percent of the institution's total assets per day for each day the information is not corrected.

    (iv) Mitigating factors. The amounts set forth in this paragraph (d)(1) may be reduced based upon the factors set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.

    (2) Civil money penalties assessed pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1467(d) for refusal by an affiliate of a State savings association to allow examination or to provide required information during an examination. Pursuant to section 9(d) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1467(d)), civil money penalties may be assessed against any State savings association if an affiliate of such an institution refuses to permit a duly-appointed examiner to conduct an examination or refuses to provide information during the course of an examination as set forth 12 U.S.C. 1467(d), in an amount not to exceed $9,819 for each day the refusal continues.

    (3) Civil money penalties assessed pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1817(a) for late filings or the submission of false or misleading reports of condition. Pursuant to section 7(a) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1817(a)), the Board of Directors or its designee may assess civil money penalties as follows:

    (i) Late filing—Tier One penalties. In cases in which an institution fails to make or publish its Report of Condition and Income (Call Report) within the appropriate time periods, a civil money penalty of not more than $3,928 per day may be assessed where the institution maintains procedures in place reasonably adapted to avoid inadvertent error and the late filing occurred unintentionally and as a result of such error; or the institution inadvertently transmitted a Call Report that is minimally late. For penalties assessed after January 15, 2018, for violations of this paragraph (d)(3)(i) that occurred on or after November 2, 2015, the following maximum Tier One penalty amounts contained in paragraphs (d)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section shall apply for each day that the violation continues.

    (A) First offense. Generally, in such cases, the amount assessed shall be $538 per day for each of the first 15 days for which the failure continues, and $1,078 per day for each subsequent day the failure continues, beginning on the sixteenth day. For institutions with less than $25,000,000 in assets, the amount assessed shall be the greater of $180 per day or 1/1000th of the institution's total assets (1/10th of a basis point) for each of the first 15 days for which the failure continues, and $359 or 1/500th of the institution's total assets, (1/5 of a basis point) for each subsequent day the failure continues, beginning on the sixteenth day.

    (B) Subsequent offense. Where the institution has been delinquent in making or publishing its Call Report within the preceding five quarters, the amount assessed for the most current failure shall generally be $897 per day for each of the first 15 days for which the failure continues, and $1,795 per day for each subsequent day the failure continues, beginning on the sixteenth day. For institutions with less than $25,000,000 in assets, those amounts, respectively, shall be 1/500th of the bank's total assets and 1/250th of the institution's total assets.

    (C) Lengthy or repeated violations. The amounts set forth in this paragraph (d)(3)(i) will be assessed on a case-by-case basis where the amount of time of the institution's delinquency is lengthy or the institution has been delinquent repeatedly in making or publishing its Call Reports.

    (D) Waiver. Absent extraordinary circumstances outside the control of the institution, penalties assessed for late filing shall not be waived.

    (ii) Late-filing—Tier Two penalties. Where an institution fails to make or publish its Call Report within the appropriate time period, the Board of Directors or its designee may assess a civil money penalty of not more than $39,278 per day for each day the failure continues.

    (iii) False or misleading reports or information—(A) Tier One penalties. In cases in which an institution submits or publishes any false or misleading Call Report or information, the Board of Directors or its designee may assess a civil money penalty of not more than $3,928 per day for each day the information is not corrected, where the institution maintains procedures in place reasonably adapted to avoid inadvertent error and the violation occurred unintentionally and as a result of such error; or the institution inadvertently transmits a Call Report or information that is false or misleading.

    (B) Tier Two penalties. Where an institution submits or publishes any false or misleading Call Report or other information, the Board of Directors or its designee may assess a civil money penalty of not more than $39,278 per day for each day the information is not corrected.

    (C) Tier Three penalties. Where an institution knowingly or with reckless disregard for the accuracy of any Call Report or information submits or publishes any false or misleading Call Report or other information, the Board of Directors or its designee may assess a civil money penalty of not more than the lesser of $1,963,870 or 1 percent of the institution's total assets per day for each day the information is not corrected.

    (iv) Mitigating factors. The amounts set forth in this paragraph (d)(3) may be reduced based upon the factors set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.

    (4) Civil money penalties assessed pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1817(c) for late filing or the submission of false or misleading certified statements. Tier One civil money penalties may be assessed pursuant to section 7(c)(4)(A) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1817(c)(4)(A)) in an amount not to exceed $3,591 for each day during which the failure to file continues or the false or misleading information is not corrected. Tier Two civil money penalties may be assessed pursuant to section 7(c)(4)(B) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1817(c)(4)(B)) in an amount not to exceed $35,904 for each day during which the failure to file continues or the false or misleading information is not corrected. Tier Three civil money penalties may be assessed pursuant to section 7(c)(4)(C) in an amount not to exceed the lesser of $1,795,216 or 1 percent of the total assets of the institution for each day during which the failure to file continues or the false or misleading information is not corrected.

    (5) Civil money penalties assessed pursuant to section 8(i)(2) of the FDIA. Tier One civil money penalties may be assessed pursuant to section 8(i)(2)(A) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)(A)) in an amount not to exceed $9,819 for each day during which the violation continues. Tier Two civil money penalties may be assessed pursuant to section 8(i)(2)(B) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)(B)) in an amount not to exceed $49,096 for each day during which the violation, practice or breach continues. Tier Three civil money penalties may be assessed pursuant to section 8(i)(2)(C) (12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)(C)) in an amount not to exceed, in the case of any person other than an insured depository institution $1,963,870 or, in the case of any insured depository institution, an amount not to exceed the lesser of $1,963,870 or 1 percent of the total assets of such institution for each day during which the violation, practice, or breach continues.

    (i) Pursuant to 7(j)(16) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(16)), a civil money penalty may be assessed for violations of change in control of insured depository institution provisions pursuant to section 8(i)(2) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)) in the amounts set forth in this paragraph (d)(5).

    (ii) Pursuant to the International Banking Act of 1978 (IBA) (12 U.S.C. 3108(b)), civil money penalties may be assessed for failure to comply with the requirements of the IBA pursuant to section 8(i)(2) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)), in the amounts set forth in this paragraph (d)(5).

    (iii) Pursuant to section 1120(b) of the Financial Institutions Recovery, Reform, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) (12 U.S.C. 3349(b)), where a financial institution seeks, obtains, or gives any other thing of value in exchange for the performance of an appraisal by a person that the institution knows is not a state certified or licensed appraiser in connection with a federally related transaction, a civil money penalty may be assessed pursuant to section 8(i)(2) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)) in the amounts set forth in this paragraph (d)(5).

    (iv) Pursuant to the Community Development Banking and Financial Institution Act (Community Development Banking Act) (12 U.S.C. 4717(b)) a civil money penalty may be assessed for violations of the Community Development Banking Act pursuant to section 8(i)(2) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)), in the amount set forth in this paragraph (d)(5).

    (v) Civil money penalties may be assessed pursuant to section 8(i)(2) of the FDIA in the amounts set forth in this paragraph (d)(5) for violations of various consumer laws, including, but not limited to, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (12 U.S.C. 2804 et seq. and 12 CFR 203.6), the Expedited Funds Availability Act (12 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Truth in Savings Act (12 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.), the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.) and the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.).

    (6) Civil money penalties assessed pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1820(e) for refusal to allow examination or to provide required information during an examination. Pursuant to section 10(e)(4) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1820(e)(4)), civil money penalties may be assessed against any affiliate of an insured depository institution that refuses to permit a duly-appointed examiner to conduct an examination or to provide information during the course of an examination as set forth in section 20(b) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1820(b)), in an amount not to exceed $8,977 for each day the refusal continues.

    (7) Civil money penalties assessed pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1820(k) for violation of one-year restriction on Federal examiners of financial institutions. Pursuant to section 10(k) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1820(k)), the Board of Directors or its designee may assess a civil money penalty of up to $323,027 against any covered former Federal examiner of a financial institution who, in violation of section 10(k) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1820(k)) and within the one-year period following termination of government service as an employee, serves as an officer, director, or consultant of a financial or depository institution, a holding company, or of any other entity listed in section 10(k) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1820(k)), without the written waiver or permission by the appropriate Federal banking agency or authority under section 10(k)(5) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1820(k)(5)).

    (8) Civil money penalties assessed pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1828(a) for incorrect display of insurance logo. Pursuant to section 18(a)(3) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1828(a)(3)), civil money penalties may be assessed against an insured depository institution that fails to correctly display its insurance logo pursuant to that section, in an amount not to exceed $122 for each day the violation continues.

    (9) Civil money penalties assessed pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1828(h) for failure to timely pay assessment—(i) In general. Subject to paragraph (d)(9)(iii) of this section, any insured depository institution that fails or refuses to pay any assessment shall be subject to a penalty in an amount of not more than 1 percent of the amount of the assessment due for each day that such violation continues.

    (ii) Exception in case of dispute. Paragraph (d)(9)(i) of this section shall not apply if—

    (A) The failure to pay an assessment is due to a dispute between the insured depository institution and the Corporation over the amount of such assessment; and

    (B) The insured depository institution deposits security satisfactory to the Corporation for payment upon final determination of the issue.

    (iii) Special rule for small assessment amounts. If the amount of the assessment that an insured depository institution fails or refuses to pay is less than $10,000 at the time of such failure or refusal, the amount of any penalty to which such institution is subject under paragraph (d)(9)(i) of this section shall not exceed $122 for each day that such violation continues.

    (iv) Authority to modify or remit penalty. The Corporation, in the sole discretion of the Corporation, may compromise, modify, or remit any penalty that the Corporation may assess or has already assessed under paragraph (d)(9)(i) of this section upon a finding that good cause prevented the timely payment of an assessment.

    (10) Civil money penalties assessed pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1829b(j) for recordkeeping violations. Pursuant to section 19b(j) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1829b(j)), civil money penalties may be assessed against an insured depository institution and any director, officer or employee thereof who willfully or through gross negligence violates or causes a violation of the recordkeeping requirements of that section or its implementing regulations in an amount not to exceed $20,521 per violation.

    (11) Civil money penalties pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1832(c) for violation of provisions regarding interest-bearing demand deposit accounts. Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1832(c), any depository institution that violates the prohibition regarding interest-bearing demand deposit accounts shall be subject to a fine of $2,852 per violation.

    (12) Civil penalties for violations of security measure requirements under 12 U.S.C. 1884. Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1884, an institution that violates a rule establishing minimum security requirements as set forth in 12 U.S.C. 1882, shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $285 for each day of the violation.

    (13) Civil money penalties assessed pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(F) for prohibited tying arrangements. Pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1970, Tier One civil money penalties may be assessed pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(F)(i) in an amount not to exceed $9,819 for each day during which the violation continues. Tier Two civil money penalties may be assessed pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(F)(ii) in an amount not to exceed $49,096 for each day during which the violation, practice or breach continues. Tier Three civil money penalties may be assessed pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(F)(iii) in an amount not to exceed, in the case of any person other than an insured depository institution $1,963,870 for each day during which the violation, practice, or breach continues or, in the case of any insured depository institution, an amount not to exceed the lesser of $1,963,870 or 1 percent of the total assets of such institution for each day during which the violation, practice, or breach continues.

    (14) Civil money penalties assessed pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 3909(d). Pursuant to the International Lending Supervision Act (ILSA) (12 U.S.C. 3909(d)), civil money penalties may be assessed against any institution or any officer, director, employee, agent or other person participating in the conduct of the affairs of such institution is an amount not to exceed $2,443 for each day a violation of the ILSA or any rule, regulation or order issued pursuant to ILSA continues.

    (15) Civil money penalties assessed for violations of 15 U.S.C. 78u-2. Pursuant to section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) (15 U.S.C. 78u-2), civil money penalties may be assessed for violations of certain provisions of the Exchange Act, where such penalties are in the public interest. Tier One civil money penalties may be assessed pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 78u-2(b)(1) in an amount not to exceed $9,239 for a natural person or $92,383 for any other person for violations set forth in 15 U.S.C. 78u-2(a). Tier Two civil money penalties may be assessed pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 78u-2(b)(2) in an amount not to exceed—for each violation set forth in 15 U.S.C. 78u-2(a)—$92,383 for a natural person or $461,916 for any other person if the act or omission involved fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement. Tier Three civil money penalties may be assessed pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 78u-2(b)(3) for each violation set forth in 15 U.S.C. 78u-2(a), in an amount not to exceed $184,767 for a natural person or $923,831 for any other person, if the act or omission involved fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement; and such act or omission directly or indirectly resulted in substantial losses, or created a significant risk of substantial losses to other persons or resulted in substantial pecuniary gain to the person who committed the act or omission.

    (16) Civil money penalties assessed pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1639e(k) for appraisal independence violations. Pursuant to section 1472(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Appraisal Independence Rule) (15 U.S.C. 1639e(k)), civil money penalties may be assessed for an initial violation of the Appraisal Independence Rule in an amount not to exceed $11,279 for each day during which the violation continues and, for subsequent violations, $22,556 for each day during which the violation continues.

    (17) Civil money penalties assessed for false claims and statements pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3802. Pursuant to the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (31 U.S.C. 3802), civil money penalties of not more than $11,181 per claim or statement may be assessed for violations involving false claims and statements.

    (18) Civil money penalties assessed for violations of 42 U.S.C. 4012a(f). Pursuant to the Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) (42 U.S.C. 4012a(f)), civil money penalties may be assessed against any regulated lending institution that engages in a pattern or practice of violations of the FDPA in an amount not to exceed $2,133 per violation.

    Dated at Washington, DC on December 19, 2017.

    By order of the Board of Directors.

    Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00403 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 12 CFR Part 1083 Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustments AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is adjusting for inflation the maximum amount of each civil penalty within the Bureau's jurisdiction. These adjustments are required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Inflation Adjustment Act). The inflation adjustments mandated by the Inflation Adjustment Act serve to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties and to promote compliance with the law.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective January 15, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Monique Chenault, Paralegal Specialist, Office of Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552, at (202) 435-7700.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990,1 as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 2 and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Inflation Adjustment Act),3 directs Federal agencies to adjust for inflation the civil penalty amounts within their jurisdiction not later than July 1, 2016, and then not later than January 15 every year thereafter.4 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. Each agency was required to make the 2016 one-time catch-up adjustments through an interim final rule published in the Federal Register. On June 14, 2016, the Bureau published its interim final rule to make the initial catch-up adjustments to civil penalties within the Bureau's jurisdiction.5 The June 2016 interim final rule created a new part 1083 and in § 1083.1 established the inflation-adjusted maximum amounts for each civil penalty within the Bureau's jurisdiction.6 The Inflation Adjustment Act also requires subsequent adjustments to be made annually, not later than January 15, and notwithstanding section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).7

    1 Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890.

    2 Public Law 104-134, section 31001(s)(1), 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-373.

    3 Public Law 114-74, section 701, 129 Stat. 584, 599.

    4 Section 1301(a) of the Federal Reports Elimination Act of 1998, Public Law 105-362, 112 Stat. 3293, also amended the Inflation Adjustment Act by striking section 6, which contained annual reporting requirements, and redesignating section 7 as section 6, but did not alter the civil penalty adjustment requirements.

    5 81 FR 38569 (June 14, 2016). Although the Bureau was not obligated to solicit comments for the interim final rule, the Bureau invited public comment and received none.

    6See 12 CFR 1083.1.

    7 Inflation Adjustment Act section 4, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    Specifically, Federal agencies are directed to adjust annually each civil penalty provided by law within the jurisdiction of the agency by the “cost-of-living adjustment.” 8 For annual adjustments after the initial catch up adjustments, the “cost-of-living adjustment” is defined as the percentage (if any) by which the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment, exceeds the CPI-U for October of the prior year.9 The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to issue guidance (OMB Guidance) every year by December 15 to agencies on implementing the annual civil penalty inflation adjustments.10 Pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act and OMB Guidance, agencies must apply the multiplier reflecting the “cost-of-living adjustment” to the current penalty amount and then round that amount to the nearest dollar to determine the annual adjustments.11

    8 Inflation Adjustment Act sections 4 and 5, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    9 Inflation Adjustment Act sections 3 and 5, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    10 Inflation Adjustment Act section 7, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    11 Inflation Adjustment Act section 5, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; Memorandum to the Exec. Dep'ts & Agencies from Mick Mulvaney, Director, Office of Mgmt. & Budget (Dec. 15, 2017), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/M-18-03.pdf.

    For the 2018 annual adjustment, the multiplier reflecting the “cost-of-living adjustment” is 1.02041.12 Pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act and OMB Guidance, the Bureau multiplied each of its civil penalty amounts by the “cost-of-living adjustment” multiplier and rounded to the nearest dollar.13

    12 Memorandum to the Exec. Dep'ts & Agencies from Mick Mulvaney, Director, Office of Mgmt. & Budget (Dec. 15, 2017), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/M-18-03.pdf.

    13 In rounding to the nearest dollar, the Bureau has rounded down where the digit immediately following the decimal point is less than 5 and has rounded up where the digit immediately following the decimal point is 5 or greater.

    The new penalty amounts that apply to civil penalties assessed after January 15, 2018 are as follows:

    Law Penalty description Penalty amounts
  • established
  • under 2017
  • final rule
  • OMB
  • “Cost-of-Living
  • Adjustment”
  • multiplier
  • New penalty
  • amount
  • Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 5565(c)(2)(A) Tier 1 penalty $5,526 1.02041 $5,639 Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 5565(c)(2)(B) Tier 2 penalty 27,631 1.02041 28,195 Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 5565(c)(2)(C) Tier 3 penalty 1,105,241 1.02041 1,127,799 Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. 1717a(a)(2) Per violation 1,925 1.02041 1,964 Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. 1717a(a)(2) Annual cap 1,924,589 1.02041 1,963,870 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. 2609(d)(1) Per failure 90 1.02041 92 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. 2609(d)(1) Annual cap 181,071 1.02041 184,767 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. 2609(d)(2)(A) Per failure, where intentional 181 1.02041 185 SAFE Act, 12 U.S.C. 5113(d)(2) Per violation 27,904 1.02041 28,474 Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1639e(k)(1) First violation 11,053 1.02041 11,279 Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1639e(k)(2) Subsequent violations 22,105 1.02041 22,556
    II. Legal Authority

    The Bureau issues this final rule under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990,14 as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 15 and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015,16 which requires the Bureau to adjust for inflation the civil penalties within its jurisdiction according to a statutorily prescribed formula.

    14 Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890.

    15 Public Law 104-134, section 31001(s)(1), 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-373.

    16 Public Law 114-74, section 701, 129 Stat. 584, 599.

    III. Procedural Requirements A. Administrative Procedure Act

    Under the APA, notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Bureau finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.17 Pursuant to this final rule, § 1083.1 is amended to update the civil penalty amounts. The 2018 adjustments to the civil penalty amounts are technical and non-discretionary, and they merely apply the statutory method for adjusting civil penalty amounts. These adjustments are required by the Inflation Adjustment Act. Moreover, the Inflation Adjustment Act directs agencies to adjust the civil penalties annually notwithstanding section 553 of the APA,18 and OMB Guidance reaffirms that agencies need not complete a notice-and-comment process before making the annual adjustments for inflation.19 For these reasons, the Bureau has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendment is adopted in final form.

    17 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

    18 Inflation Adjustment Act section 4, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    19 Memorandum to the Exec. Dep'ts & Agencies from Mick Mulvaney, Director, Office of Mgmt. & Budget (Dec. 15, 2017), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/M-18-03.pdf.

    Section 553(d) of the APA generally requires publication of a final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.20 At a minimum, the Bureau believes the annual adjustments to the civil penalty amounts in § 1083.1 fall under the third exception to section 553(d). The Bureau finds that there is good cause to make the amendments effective on January 15, 2018. The amendments to § 1083.1 in this final rule are technical and non-discretionary, and they merely apply the statutory method for adjusting civil penalty amounts and follow the statutory directive to make annual adjustments by January 15 of each year. Moreover, the Inflation Adjustment Act directs agencies to adjust the civil penalties annually notwithstanding section 553 of the APA,21 and OMB Guidance reaffirms that agencies need not provide a delay in effective date for the annual adjustments for inflation.22

    20 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

    21 Inflation Adjustment Act section 4, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    22 Memorandum to the Exec. Dep'ts & Agencies from Mick Mulvaney, Director, Office of Mgmt. & Budget (Dec. 15, 2017), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/M-18-03.pdf.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis.23

    23 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,24 the Bureau reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.

    24 44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320.

    D. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), CFPB will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to the rule taking effect. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has designated this rule as not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1083

    Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection, Penalties.

    Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau amends 12 CFR part 1083 as set forth below:

    PART 1083—CIVIL PENALTY ADJUSTMENTS 1. The authority citation for part 1083 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 2609(d); 12 U.S.C. 5113(d)(2); 12 U.S.C. 5565(c); 15 U.S.C. 1639e(k); 15 U.S.C. 1717a(a); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    2. Section 1083.1 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1083.1 Adjustments of civil penalty amounts.

    (a) The maximum amount of each civil penalty within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to impose is adjusted in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note), as follows:

    U.S. Code citation Civil penalty description Adjusted
  • maximum
  • civil
  • penalty
  • amount
  • 12 U.S.C. 5565(c)(2)(A) Tier 1 penalty $5,639 12 U.S.C. 5565(c)(2)(B) Tier 2 penalty 28,195 12 U.S.C. 5565(c)(2)(C) Tier 3 penalty 1,127,799 15 U.S.C. 1717a(a)(2) Per violation 1,964 15 U.S.C. 1717a(a)(2) Annual cap 1,963,870 12 U.S.C. 2609(d)(1) Per failure 92 12 U.S.C. 2609(d)(1) Annual cap 184,767 12 U.S.C. 2609(d)(2)(A) Per failure, where intentional 185 12 U.S.C. 5113(d)(2) Per violation 28,474 15 U.S.C. 1639e(k)(1) First violation 11,279 15 U.S.C. 1639e(k)(2) Subsequent violations 22,556

    (b) The adjustments in paragraph (a) of this section shall apply to civil penalties assessed after January 15, 2018, regardless of when the violation for which the penalty is assessed occurred.

    Dated: January 4, 2018. Mick Mulvaney, Acting Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00399 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1244; Product Identifier 2013-NM-145-AD; Amendment 39-19152; AD 2018-01-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A319-115 and A319-133 airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition on these products, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. This AD was prompted by a fire during a flight, in the vicinity of the gaseous oxygen system (GOS) for passengers. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective January 29, 2018.

    We must receive comments on this AD by February 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1244; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2014-0045, dated February 25, 2014; corrected March 4, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A319-115 and A319-133 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Following an ECAM [electronic centralized aircraft monitor] warning “CARGO SMOKE” during flight, the flight crew elected to divert and the aeroplane made an uneventful landing. The post-flight inspection evidenced a heavy fire in the vicinity of the Gaseous Oxygen System (GOS) for passengers, located close to the cargo area. The origin of the fire has not been clearly identified. After more investigation, Airbus determined that the current optional passenger GOS design, specific to A319 aeroplanes, is not robust enough to prevent further events of this kind.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to an uncontrolled fire, possibly resulting in loss of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed mod 153555 to improve the (optional) A319 GOS for passengers and published Service Bulletin (SB) A320-35-1062 to provide that modification for in-service application.

    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2013-0153 to require modification of the passenger GOS installation.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, a mistake was identified in Airbus SB A320-35-1062 concerning the pressure relief valve installation and the SB has been corrected and revised accordingly with mod 155860.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0153, which is superseded, but requires those actions to be done in accordance with the instructions of Airbus SB 35-1062 Revision 01.

    This [EASA] AD has been republished to correct an error that referenced the wrong effective date for EASA AD 2013-0153.

    You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1244.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-1244; Product Identifier 2013-NM-145-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is placed on the U.S. Register in the future:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Passenger GOS modification Up to 33 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,805 Up to $30,782 Up to $33,587 Placard modification 5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $425 $0 $425 Pressure hose modification 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 $9,690 $10,370 Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

    2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-01-11 Airbus: Amendment 39-19152; Docket No. FAA-2017-1244; Product Identifier 2013-NM-145-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective January 29, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A319-115 and A319-133 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers, having received in production Airbus modification 33125 (installation of Gaseous Oxygen System (GOS) for passengers), except those on which Airbus modification 153555 and 155860 have been embodied in production.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a fire during a flight, in the vicinity of the GOS for passengers. We are issuing this AD to prevent an uncontrolled fire in the vicinity of the GOS for passengers, near the cargo area, which could result in loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Required Action(s)

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, request instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, to address the unsafe condition specified in paragraph (e) of this AD; and accomplish the actions at the times specified in, and in accordance with, those instructions. Guidance can be found in Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2014-0045, dated February 25, 2014; corrected March 4, 2014.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2014-0045, dated February 25, 2014; corrected March 4, 2014, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1244.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149.

    (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 2, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00343 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0629; Product Identifier 2016-NM-184-AD; Amendment 39-19149; AD 2018-01-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking in the frame outboard chord and in the radius of the auxiliary chord at a certain area. This AD requires inspections to detect this cracking, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective February 16, 2018 .

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 26, 2012 (77 FR 69747, November 21, 2012).

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0629.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0629; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5232; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2017 (82 FR 29792). The NPRM was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking in the frame outboard chord and in the radius of the auxiliary chord at a certain area. The NPRM proposed to require inspections to detect this cracking, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the outboard and auxiliary chords, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the outboard chord and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions specified in the NPRM.

    We agree with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as (c)(1) and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

    Request To Remove Certain Language in Paragraph (i) of the Proposed AD

    Boeing asked that the language “and repair” be removed from paragraph (i) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that the language in paragraph (i) refers to a section in Part 6 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006, which is to determine if the modification should be classified as interim or permanent. Boeing noted that the additional language “and repair” is not part of that section, and suggested it be deleted.

    We agree with the commenter's request for the reason provided. We have deleted “and repair” from paragraph (i) of this AD.

    Request To Clarify Certain Language

    Swiftair S.A. stated that the language describing the requirements in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD is confusing. Swiftair asked that the effectivity and the requirements identified in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD be clarified in some way due to extensive sub-paragraphs. Swiftair recommended that the “and” in the sentence be emphasized.

    We acknowledge the commenter's concern. However, we cannot emphasize or highlight specific text in an AD. The affected airplanes in paragraph (h) of the AD are those that meet all of the criteria specified in the sub-paragraphs. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Swiftair S.A. also stated that the language describing the requirements in paragraph (j) of the proposed AD is confusing. Swiftair added that the pre-regulatory text in the NPRM refers to actions from AD 2012-23-04, Amendment 39-17260 (77 FR 69747, November 21, 2012) (“AD 2012-23-04”) and the combination of that rulemaking and the actions in the proposed AD is confusing. Swiftair also stated that paragraph (r) of AD 2012-23-04 should be explained in the current requirements and not in the pre-regulatory text.

    We agree that some clarification is necessary. Concerning the request to include the current requirements of AD 2012-23-04 in this AD, we would have had to issue different rulemaking. Instead of a stand-alone AD, the alternative would have been to supersede AD 2012-23-04, which would have resulted in a single but considerably more complex AD. All operators identified in AD 2012-23-04 would then have to show compliance with the new supersedure AD. Our experience with similar complex ADs, and with operator feedback, is that it is preferable to leave the existing AD as is and issue a related but stand-alone AD such as this one.

    To clarify the criteria in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, we have added Note 1 to paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to reference the optional terminating action specified in paragraph (r) of AD 2012-23-04.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

    We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006. The service information describes procedures for inspections for cracks of the body station (BS) 727 frame outboard chord and in the radius of the auxiliary chord, and repair or replacement if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 160 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Affected
  • airplanes
  • of U.S.
  • registry
  • Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on
  • U.S. operators
  • Detailed and High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) inspections 6 work-hours × $85 per hour = $510 per inspection cycle 5 $510 $2,550 per inspection cycle. One-time follow-on HFEC inspection 9 work-hours × $85 per hour = $765 5 765 $3,825. HFEC inspection 9 work-hours × $85 per hour = $765 150 765 $114,750.

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that are required based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Repair of cracking of the outboard chord frame 514 work-hours × $85 per hour = $43,690 $13,586 $57,276. Repair of cracking of the outboard chord 49 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,165 4,255 8,420.
    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-01-08 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19149; Docket No. FAA-2017-0629; Product Identifier 2016-NM-184-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 16, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/EBD1CEC7B301293E86257CB30045557A?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01219se) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking in the frame outboard chord and in the radius of the auxiliary chord at body station (BS) 727 and stringer (S) 18A. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the outboard and auxiliary chords, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the outboard chord and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Action

    For airplanes identified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 4,500 flight cycles or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do internal detailed and High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) inspections to detect cracks in the auxiliary chord radius, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006. If any crack is found during any inspection required by this paragraph, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 15,000 flight cycles. Replacement of the outboard chord of the frame at BS 727 concurrently with the installation of the preventive modification of the outboard chord in accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006, terminates the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph.

    (h) Airplanes for Actions Specified in Paragraph (g) of This AD

    The actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD are required for airplanes that meet the criteria of paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(4) of this AD.

    (1) Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes, line numbers 1 through 999 inclusive.

    (2) Airplanes identified as Groups 1, 2, and 3 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006.

    (3) Airplanes on which a preventive modification has been installed in accordance with the method specified in paragraph (h)(3)(i), (h)(3)(ii), or (h)(3)(iii) of this AD.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h)(3) of this AD: The modification identified in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD is also specified in paragraph (r) of AD 2012-23-04, Amendment 39-17260 (77 FR 69747, November 21, 2012), as optional terminating action.

    (i) Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006.

    (ii) Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 1, dated May 25, 1995.

    (iii) Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, dated June 30, 1994.

    (4) Airplanes on which the outboard chord has not been replaced in accordance with the method specified in paragraph (h)(4)(i), (h)(4)(ii), or (h)(4)(iii) of this AD.

    (i) Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006.

    (ii) Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 1, dated May 25, 1995.

    (iii) Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, dated June 30, 1994.

    (i) Edge Margin Measurement, Related Investigative Actions, and Repair

    For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes having line numbers 1 through 999 inclusive, identified as Groups 1 through 3 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006, on which the preventive modification has been installed in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, dated June 30, 1994; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 1, dated May 25, 1995: Within 60,000 flight cycles after accomplishing the preventive modification, determine if the modification is classified as interim or permanent by using the edge margin measurement classification specified in part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006. In lieu of measuring on the airplane, a review of engineering documentation may be used to classify the modification if the engineering documentation was completed at the time of the modification and has the edge margins recorded.

    (1) If the modification is classified as permanent, no further action is required by paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (2) If the modification is classified as interim: Within 60,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of the interim modification of the outboard chord of the frame at BS 727 at S-18A, but no earlier than 50,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of the modification, do a one-time follow-on open-hole eddy current inspection to detect cracks in the modified chord, in accordance with part 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006. If any crack is found, before further flight, repair in accordance with part 3 or part 4, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006; except, if the repairs cannot be installed using the identified procedures, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (j) Follow-On Inspection for Interim Modification and Repair

    For airplanes having line numbers 1 through 3132 inclusive, on which an interim modification of the BS 727 outboard chord as defined in part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006, has been accomplished: Within 60,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of the interim modification of the outboard chord of the frame at BS 727 at S-18A, but no earlier than 50,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of the modification, do a one-time follow-on open-hole eddy current inspection to detect cracks in the modified chord, in accordance with part 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006. If any crack is found during the inspection required by this paragraph, before further flight, repair in accordance with part 3 or part 4, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006; except, where the repairs cannot be installed using the procedures identified in this service bulletin, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (k) Exception to the Service Information

    Access and restoration procedures specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006, are not required by this AD. Operators may do those actions following their approved maintenance procedures.

    (l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5232; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected].

    (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on December 26, 2012 (77 FR 69747, November 21, 2012).

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1166, Revision 2, dated May 25, 2006.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 2, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00256 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1242; Product Identifier 2013-NM-043-AD; Amendment 39-19150; AD 2018-01-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 95-25-02, which applied to certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes. AD 95-25-02 required inspection(s) to detect cracks of the fuselage-mounted half of hinge assemblies of the small cargo door, and replacement of any cracked hinge assembly with a new hinge assembly. This new AD was prompted by a report that the hinges of the small cargo door are made of a material that is sensitive to stress corrosion and fatigue cracking, and by the determination that the existing inspection program does not provide sufficient protection against fatigue-induced cracks. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition on these products, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective January 29, 2018.

    We must receive comments on this AD by February 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1242; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1137; fax: 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued AD 95-25-02, Amendment 39-9446 (60 FR 63615, December 12, 1995) (“AD 95-25-02”), which applied to certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes. AD 95-25-02 was prompted by a report that the hinges of the small cargo door are made of a material that is sensitive to stress corrosion cracking. AD 95-25-02 required inspection(s) to detect cracks of the fuselage-mounted half of hinge assemblies of the small cargo door, and replacement of any cracked hinge assembly with a new hinge assembly. We issued AD 95-25-02 to prevent failure of the hinges of the small cargo door due to stress corrosion cracking, which could result in opening and/or separation of the door while the airplane is in flight, and resultant rapid decompression and/or structural damage to the airplane.

    Since we issued AD 95-25-02, we have determined that the existing inspection program does not provide sufficient protection against fatigue-induced cracks.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2013-0028, dated February 8, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Over the years, stress corrosion- and fatigue-induced cracks were found on the hinges of the downward opening small cargo doors installed on Fokker F28 Mark 0100 aeroplanes.

    To address the potential unsafe condition with respect to stress corrosion, CAA-NL issued AD (BLA) 93-036/2 [which corresponded to FAA AD 95-25-02] to require repetitive inspections and, if cracks are found, replacement of the hinges with hinges of a new design. These new hinges were installed before delivery on aeroplanes with s/n 11409 and higher.

    To ensure the continued structural integrity with respect to fatigue, a repetitive inspection was included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

    As part of the Widespread Fatigue Damage re-evaluation, it was concluded that the repetitive fatigue inspection in the ALS does not provide a sufficient level of protection against the fatigue-induced cracks.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of CAA-NL AD 93-036/2, which is superseded, and requires replacement of Part Number (P/N) A28410-405 and P/N A28410-407 hinges with modified P/N D28410-409 hinges.

    You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1242.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-1242; Product Identifier 2013-NM-043-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is placed on the U.S. Register in the future:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Inspections (retained actions from AD 95-25-02) 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 per inspection cycle $0 $170 per inspection cycle. Replacement (new action) Up to 186 work-hours × $85 per hour = $15,810 Up to $7,700 Up to $23,510.

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition replacements that would be required based on the results of the required actions:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Replacement (retained actions from AD 95-25-02) Up to 186 work-hours × $85 per hour = $15,810 Up to $7,700 Up to $23,510. Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

    2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) 95-25-02, Amendment 39-9446 (60 FR 63617, December 12, 1995), and adding the following new AD: 2018-01-09 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-19150; Docket No. FAA-2017-1242; Product Identifier 2013-NM-043-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective January 29, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 95-25-02, Amendment 39-9446 (60 FR 63615, December 12, 1995) (“AD 95-25-02”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 11244 through 11267 inclusive, 11284, 11285, 11287, 11288, 11290, 11292, 11294, 11296, 11298, 11299, 11301, 11302, 11304, 11305, 11307, 11309, 11311, 11315, 11317, 11319, 11320, 11322, 11336, 11339, 11341 through 11344 inclusive, 11347, 11348, 11350, 11351, 11362 through 11364 inclusive, 11371, 11374, 11375, 11381 through 11384 inclusive, 11386, 11389, 11390, 11394, and 11401.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that the hinges of the small cargo door are made of a material that is sensitive to stress corrosion cracking, and by the determination that the existing inspection program does not provide sufficient protection against fatigue-induced cracks. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the hinges of the small cargo door due to stress corrosion cracking, which could result in opening and/or separation of the door while the airplane is in flight, and resultant rapid decompression and/or structural damage to the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Required Action(s)

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, request instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, to address the unsafe condition specified in paragraph (e) of this AD; and accomplish the action(s) at the times specified in, and in accordance with, those instructions. Guidance can be found in Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2013-0028, dated February 8, 2013.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2013-0028, dated February 8, 2013, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1242.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1137; fax: 425-227-1149.

    (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 2, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00339 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1243; Product Identifier 2012-NM-150-AD; Amendment 39-19151; AD 2018-01-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-14-10, which applied to certain Airbus Model A330-342 airplanes. AD 2011-14-10 required repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracks of a certain fuselage frame at the fastener hole area just above a certain stringer, and repair, if necessary. This new AD was prompted by a new fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation, which showed that certain inspection thresholds and intervals need to be shorter. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition on these products, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective January 29, 2018.

    We must receive comments on this AD by February 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1243; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued AD 2011-14-10, Amendment 39-16745 (76 FR 41657, July 15, 2011) (“AD 2011-14-10”), which applied to certain Airbus Model A330-342 airplanes. AD 2011-14-10 was prompted by a determination that airworthiness limitation item (ALI) task 533105-10-02 was not performed on certain airplanes. AD 2011-14-10 required repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracks of fuselage frame 39.1 at the fastener hole area just above stringer 28, and repair, if necessary. We issued AD 2011-14-10 to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the internal structure of the fuselage, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

    Since we issued AD 2011-14-10, we have determined, based on a new fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation that took into account airplane usage, that the compliance time threshold and intervals need to be shorter.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2012-0140, dated July 27, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-342 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Airworthiness Limitation Item (ALI) task 533105-01-02 is applicable to aeroplanes on which Airbus modification 40391 has not been embodied in production. The requirements associated to this task are applicable to aeroplanes on which Modification Proposal (MP) S10374 has not been embodied.

    Following a query from an operator, investigations revealed that some aeroplane [manufacturer serial numbers] MSN, for which Airbus modification 40391 was indicated as fully embodied inside the Aircraft Inspection Report (AIR), did not have MP S10374 which is part of this modification embodied in production. As a result, ALI task 533105-01-02 has not been performed on the aeroplane MSN listed in the applicability section of this [EASA] AD, which constitutes an unsafe condition.

    Prompted by these findings, EASA issued AD 2010-0173 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2011-14-10] to require repetitive special detailed inspections corresponding to ALI task 533105-01-02 and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of applicable corrective actions.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, a new fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation has been done, taking into account the aeroplane utilisation. Certain threshold and interval are more restrictive depending on airplane utilisation.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2010-0173, which is superseded, but requires those actions to be accomplished within amended thresholds and intervals.

    You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1243.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-1243; Product Identifier 2012-NM-150-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is placed on the U.S. Register in the future:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Inspection (retained action from AD 2011-14-10) 15 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,275 per inspection cycle $0 $1,275 per inspection cycle.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

    2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) 2011-14-10, Amendment 39-16745 (76 FR 41657, July 15, 2011), and adding the following new AD: 2018-01-10 Airbus: Amendment 39-19151; Docket No. FAA-2017-1243; Product Identifier 2012-NM-150-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective January 29, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-14-10, Amendment 39-16745 (76 FR 41657, July 15, 2011) (“AD 2011-14-10”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-342 airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers 0012 and 0017.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that airworthiness limitation item (ALI) task 533105-10-02 was not performed on certain airplanes, and a new fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation, which showed that certain inspection thresholds and intervals need to be shorter. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the internal structure of the fuselage, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Required Action(s)

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, request instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, to address the unsafe condition specified in paragraph (e) of this AD; and accomplish the action(s) at the times specified in, and in accordance with, those instructions. Guidance can be found in Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2012-0140, dated July 27, 2012.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2012-0140, dated July 27, 2012, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1243.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.

    (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 2, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00345 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0032; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-1] Amendment of Class D Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Fort Eustis, VA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action removes Class E airspace designated as an extension at Fort Eustis, VA, as the Felker non-directional beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned, and the approaches cancelled at Felker Army Airfield, (AAF). This action also updates the airport's geographic coordinates under Class D airspace.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, March 29, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it removes Class E airspace designated as an extension, and amends Class D airspace at Felker AAF, Fort Eustis, VA, to support IFR operations under standard instrument approach procedures at the airport.

    History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (82 FR 16952, April 7, 2017) for Docket No. FAA-2017-0032. The NPRM proposed to amend Class E airspace designated as an extension at Felker AAF, Fort Eustis, VA, due to the decommissioning of the Felker NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    This action also makes an editorial change to the Class D airspace legal description removing the words “(formerly the Airport/Facility Directory)”. Except for this change, the rule is the same as published in the NPRM.

    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by removing Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area at Felker Army Airfield, Fort Eustis, VA, due to the decommissioning of the Felker NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted under Class D to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Additionally, this action removes the words “(formerly the Airport/Facility Directory)” from the Class D airspace legal description.

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. AEA VA D Fort Eustis, VA [Amended] Felker Army Airfield, Fort Eustis, VA (Lat. 37°07′57″ N, long. 76°36′32″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of Felker Army Airfield, excluding the portion that coincides with the Newport News, VA, Class D airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be published continuously in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. AEA VA E4 Fort Eustis, VA [Removed]
    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 4, 2018. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00397 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 3 and 9 RIN 3038-AE15 Technical Amendments to Rules on Registration and Review of Exchange Disciplinary, Access Denial, or Other Adverse Actions AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is adopting certain amendments to its rules that, respectively, govern registration of intermediaries and relate to the Commission's review of exchange disciplinary, access denial, or other adverse actions. Generally speaking, these amendments are technical in nature. The amendments to both areas of the rules integrate existing advisory guidance. The amendments to the rules on review of exchange disciplinary, access denial, or other adverse actions also incorporate swap execution facilities (“SEFs”) and update provisions currently applicable to designated contract markets (“DCMs”). These final rules also remove numerous outdated cross-references, and add citations to applicable parallel provisions contained in other Commission regulations pertaining to SEFs and DCMs. Additionally, the final rules address the publication of final disciplinary and access denial actions taken by the SEFs and DCMs on their exchange websites.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective March 13, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rachel Berdansky, Deputy Director, 202-418-5429 or [email protected]; David Steinberg, Associate Director, 202-418-5102 or [email protected]; Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1151 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. Description of Part 9 B. DCM Final Rules and Part 8 Removal C. SEF Final Rules II. Summary of the Proposal A. Amendments to Part 9: Rules Relating to Review of Exchange Disciplinary, Access Denial or Other Adverse Actions B. Amendment to Regulation 3.31: Deficiencies, Inaccuracies, and Changes To Be Reported III. Comments on the Proposal IV. Final Rules and Notice and Order A. Final Rules B. Deletion of References to Commission Form 3-R C. Notice and Order V. Related Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Cost-Benefit Considerations D. Antitrust Considerations I. Background A. Description of Part 9

    On December 20, 1978, the Commission adopted part 9 rules relating to the Commission's review of exchange disciplinary, access denial, or other adverse actions.1 These rules detail the process and procedures for Commission review, including the appellate process in cases where a person applies to the Commission for review. The rules also address the procedures and standards governing filing and service, motions, and settlement; the process that exchanges must follow in providing notice of the final disciplinary action to the subject of the action and to the Commission; and the publication of such notice. As discussed below, DCMs and SEFs are already required to comply with the part 9 regulations.

    1 43 FR 59343 (Dec. 20, 1978).

    B. DCM Final Rules and Part 8 Removal

    In June 2012, the Commission adopted final regulations for DCMs (“DCM Final Rules”).2 Commission regulation 38.2 of the DCM Final Rules provides that DCMs “shall comply with all applicable regulations under Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations,” except for certain exempt provisions.3 Part 9 applies to DCMs by defining “exchange” in Commission regulation 9.2(c) for purposes of the rules as “any board of trade which has been designated as a contract market.” 4

    2 Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets, 77 FR 36612 (June 19, 2012).

    3Id. at 36697; 17 CFR 38.2. Part 9 is not included in the list of exempt provisions.

    4 17 CFR 9.2(c).

    Additionally, in the DCM Final Rules, the Commission adopted regulations in Subpart N—Disciplinary Procedures of part 38 to amend the disciplinary procedures applicable to DCMs.5 Several of the regulations adopted in subpart N of part 38 are similar to the text of the disciplinary procedures found in former part 8—exchange procedures for disciplinary, summary, and membership denial actions.6 The Commission removed part 8 from the regulations in order to avoid any confusion from having two sets of disciplinary procedures for DCMs.7 As a result of this removal, the current part 9 rules, which contain cross-references to part 8 throughout, are being updated in the final rules to instead cite to parallel provisions now contained in part 37 for SEFs and part 38 for DCMs.

    5 17 CFR 38.700 through 38.712.

    6 43 FR 41950 (Sept. 19, 1978); 17 CFR 38.700 through 38.712. For example, part 8 contained regulations 8.05 (Enforcement staff); 8.08 (Disciplinary committee); and 8.20 (Final decision). Subpart N of part 38 has corresponding provisions: 38.701 (Enforcement staff); 38.702 (Disciplinary panels); and 38.709 (Final decisions).

    7 Although Commission regulation 38.2 of the DCM Final Rules specifies that DCMs are not required to comply with part 8, the Commission removed part 8 to avoid any confusion resulting from the regulations containing two sets of exchange disciplinary procedures as part of the Adaptation of Regulations to Incorporate Swaps Rulemaking. 17 CFR 38.2; and removal of part 8 at 77 FR 66304 (Nov. 2, 2012).

    C. SEF Final Rules

    On June 4, 2013, the Commission adopted new rules in part 37 for SEFs (“SEF Final Rules”).8 In regulation 37.2 of the SEF Final Rules, the Commission specified that SEFs shall comply with the requirements of part 9.9 Accordingly, for clarity purposes, the final rules amend certain part 9 definitions and language which have not yet been addressed, to integrate them into the post-Dodd-Frank regulatory regime.

    8 Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 78 FR 33476 (June 4, 2013).

    9See id. 33479; 17 CFR 37.2.

    II. Summary of the Proposal A. Amendments to Part 9: Rules Relating to Review of Exchange Disciplinary, Access Denial or Other Adverse Actions

    On January 23, 2017, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM” or “Proposal”) to amend certain part 3 and part 9 rules.10 As discussed in the NPRM, most of the amendments are purely ministerial—for instance, some of the proposed changes updated definitions in Commission regulation 9.2 to conform them to the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA” or “Act”) as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act as well as other sections of the Commission's regulations.11

    10 82 FR 7738 (Jan. 23, 2017).

    11Id. at 7740.

    The Commission proposed to amend the definitions of four terms in regulation 9.2. First, the Commission proposed to amend the definition of “disciplinary action” by removing the reference to “member of an exchange” and inserting “person” in its place.12 The Commission explained in the NPRM that it is necessary to expand the “disciplinary action” definition to account for instances where an exchange imposes sanctions against a person that is not a member of the exchange.13 The proposed language to include “person” in the “disciplinary action” definition is consistent with the statutory language found in Core Principle 2 for DCMs and section 8c(b) of the CEA, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act.14 Second, the Commission proposed to amend the definition of “exchange” in regulation 9.2(c) to include SEFs. This change makes it clear that the Commission has the discretion to review adverse actions imposed by a SEF and clarify that SEFs are subject to all of the part 9 requirements.15 Third, the Commission proposed to amend regulation 9.2(f) to expand the definition of “member of an exchange” to include any person who has trading privileges on an exchange. This change is necessary to conform the part 9 definition of “member” to the meaning set forth in section 1a(34) of the CEA and in 1.3(q) of the Commission's regulations.16 Fourth, the Commission proposed to amend the definition of “summary action” in regulation 9.2(k) by adding references to part 37 for SEFs and replacing the part 8 references with the relevant provisions from part 38.17

    12 The Commission also proposed to amend the disciplinary action definition by removing the reference to regulation 8.03(i).

    13 82 FR 7741 (Jan. 23, 2017).

    14 Section 735 of the Dodd-Frank Act amends section 5 of the CEA, including DCM Core Principle 2. Paragraph (B)—Capacity of Contract Market—of Core Principle 2 specifically requires that the board of trade shall have the capacity to detect, investigate, and apply appropriate sanctions to any person that violates any rule of the contract market. Section 8c(b) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 12c(b), provides that the Commission may, in its discretion and in accordance with such standards and procedures as it deems appropriate, review any decision by an exchange whereby a person is suspended, expelled, disciplined, or denied access to the exchange. In addition, section 8c(b) of the CEA provides that the Commission may, in its discretion and upon application of any person who is adversely affected by any other exchange action, review such action.

    15Id. The Commission notes that regulation 37.2 requires, among other things, that a SEF shall comply with the part 9 regulations. 17 CFR 37.2. Additionally, footnote 40 of the SEF Final Rules states “the term `exchange' used in part 9 of the Commission's regulations should be interpreted to include a SEF for purposes of applying the requirements of part 9 to a SEF.” 78 FR 33476, 33479 (June 4, 2013).

    16 Section 1a(34) of the CEA provides that the term “member” means, among other things, an individual, association, partnership, corporation, or trust having trading privileges on the registered entity. See also 17 CFR 1.3(q). By amending the definition of “member of an exchange” to include all persons with trading privileges, the Commission is clarifying that the appellate process and Commission review, as defined in part 9, applies to all persons with trading privileges.

    17 Specifically, the proposed definition of “summary action” means a disciplinary action resulting in the imposition of a penalty on a person for violation of rules of the exchange permitted under the provisions of part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, section (a)(10)(vi) or part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, section (a)(4) (penalty for impeding progress of hearing); part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, section (a)(14) or part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, section (a)(7) (emergency disciplinary actions); part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, section (a)(13) (summary fines for violations of rules regarding timely submission of records); or part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, section (a)(6) (summary fines for violations of rules regarding timely submission of records, decorum, or other similar activities).

    The Commission also proposed to amend regulation 9.11(a) to remove the requirement that an exchange provide written notice to the Commission of a final disciplinary action or access denial action and replace it with a requirement to provide notice to the National Futures Association (“NFA”). As explained in the NPRM, the Commission delegated authority to the NFA in 1999 to receive and process exchange disciplinary and access denial information (“Part 9 Delegation”).18 Consequently, the NFA currently serves as the official custodian of records for exchange disciplinary filings. The Commission noted in the NPRM that it intends to amend the Part 9 Delegation order, consistent with the requirement that exchanges provide exchange disciplinary and access denial information to the NFA.19 In 1999, concurrent with the Part 9 Delegation, the Commission also published an advisory permitting exchanges to file § 9.11 notices with the Commission or the NFA (“Part 9 Advisory”).20 The Commission proposed to codify the Part 9 Advisory and formally replace the regulation 9.11 requirement that written notice be provided to the Commission by amending § 9.11 to require that notice be provided to the NFA via the NFA's BASIC system and eliminate the option of filing the notice with the Commission.

    18 82 FR 7741 (Jan. 23, 2017). The NFA created the Background Affiliation Status Information Center (“BASIC”) system through which the public can access information pertaining to the types of violations committed, penalties imposed, the effective date of the action, and, in some cases, the text from the exchange's decision.

    19Id.

    20 64 FR 39915 (July 23, 1999) (“Part 9 Advisory”).

    The Commission proposed an amendment to regulation 9.11(b)(3)(ii) by adding the type of product (as applicable) involved in the adverse action as an additional element required to be included in the contents of the notice. The Commission stated in the NPRM that requiring exchanges to provide this information in the § 9.11 notice will provide the Commission, market participants, the public, and other exchanges with greater transparency concerning where market abuses originate and whether the abuses are concentrated among certain product types.21 The Commission also proposed to amend regulation 9.11(b)(3)(ii) by codifying the clarification contained in the Part 9 Advisory that an exchange indicate in its notice of disciplinary or access denial actions whether the violation underlying the notice resulted in financial harm to any customers.22

    21 For example, a product trading on a DCM might be specified as a July 2016 Eurodollar future; while a product trading on a SEF may be a CDX North American High Yield Series 26 5 year.

    22 64 FR 39917 (July 23, 1999).

    The Commission also proposed to amend regulation 9.11(c) by deleting instructions for filing notice with the Commission and replacing them with instructions for filing notice with the NFA given the proposed changes to regulation 9.11(a) discussed above. The NPRM provided that filing of the notice with the NFA is accomplished when an authorized exchange employee verifies the accuracy of the information entered into BASIC.

    The Commission proposed to amend regulation 9.11(d), which sets forth the effect of delivery and filing by mail, by deleting instructions related to filing notices with the Commission by mail since proposed regulation 9.11(c) calls for notice filings to be made to the NFA via BASIC instead of with the Commission by mail.

    Pursuant to Commission regulation 9.12(b), an exchange that determines that a disciplinary action will become effective prior to the expiration of 15 days after written notice to the person that is the subject of such action must provide notification in writing either personally or by telegram or other means of written telecommunication. The exchange also must immediately notify the Commission by telegram or other means of written telecommunication. The Commission proposed to modernize regulation 9.12(b) by replacing references to “telegram or other means of written telecommunication” with the term “email” and provide a Commission email address for Commission notification.

    Commission regulation 9.13 provides that whenever an exchange suspends, expels or otherwise disciplines, or denies any person access to the exchange, it must make its findings public by disclosing at least the information contained in the Commission regulation 9.11(b) notice. An exchange also must make such findings public as soon as the disciplinary action or access denial action becomes effective by posting a notice in a conspicuous place on its premises. As noted in the NPRM, posting a notice of disciplinary action on the premises of an exchange does little to publicize the action.23 Accordingly, the Commission proposed to modernize regulation 9.13 by requiring the notice to be posted on an exchange's website to which its members, market participants, and the public regularly have access.24 The Commission also proposed to amend regulation 9.13 by requiring the notice to be maintained and readily available on an exchange's website.25 As a result, the existing requirement to maintain and make available for public inspection a record of the information contained in the disciplinary or access denial notice would be eliminated.

    23 82 FR 7743 (Jan. 23, 2017).

    24 The Commission noted in the NPRM that many DCMs have already adopted more modern methods to publicize notices of disciplinary action. 82 FR 7743 (Jan. 23, 2017). For example, the CME Group DCMs (Chicago Board of Trade (“CBOT”), Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”), Commodity Exchange, Inc., (“COMEX”), and New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (“NYMEX”)) and ICE Futures U.S. notify subscribers of exchange disciplinary postings via email. The Commission also noted that the amendment generally tracks the Securities and Exchange Commission's (“SEC”) standards for Release of Disciplinary Complaints, Decisions and Other Information in Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) Rule 8313, in which FINRA, with SEC approval, has established its standard for releasing to the public a copy of FINRA issued disciplinary complaints, decisions, and other disciplinary information. See FINRA Rule 8313 “Release of Disciplinary Complaints, Decisions and Other Information,” available at http://finra.complinet.com/en/display/display_main.html?rbid=2403&element_id=3892. See also SEC Release No. 34-69825; File No. SR-FINRA-2013-018 (June 21, 2013).

    25 Some DCMs currently maintain records of disciplinary action on their websites. For example, CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC maintains a disciplinary decision database on its website that allows the public to review disciplinary decisions dating back to 2012. The Commission notes that in the securities industry, the New York Stock Exchange maintains disciplinary notices as far back as 1972.

    The Commission also noted in the NPRM that it anticipates that upon the effective date of the final part 9 rules, it will include links on its SmartCheck website to each exchange's website for posting notice of disciplinary action or access denial action.26

    26 82 FR 7743 (Jan. 23, 2017). In November 2014, the CFTC launched the SmartCheck website. It connects investors to tools to check the registration, license, and disciplinary history of certain financial professionals. This collection of tools allows the responsible investor to confirm the credentials of investment professionals, uncover any past disciplinary history, and stay ahead of scam artists with news and alerts.

    B. Amendment to Regulation 3.31: Deficiencies, Inaccuracies, and Changes To Be Reported

    Pursuant to Commission regulation 3.31, an applicant or registrant as a futures commission merchant (“FCM”), retail foreign exchange dealer (“RFED”), swap dealer (“SD”), major swap participant (“MSP”), commodity trading advisor (“CTA”), commodity pool operator (“CPO”), introducing broker (“IB”), or floor trader (“FT”) that is a non-natural person or leverage transaction merchant (“LTM”) must promptly correct any deficiency or inaccuracy in Form 7-R or Form 8-R which has rendered the information contained therein non-current or inaccurate. These corrections must be made in accordance with the instructions of each form to create a Form 3-R record of such change.

    In 1999, concurrent with the Part 9 Delegation and Part 9 Advisory, the Commission issued an advisory pertaining to part 3 of the Commission's regulations (“Part 3 Advisory”). The Part 3 Advisory relieves registrants and applicants for registrant status from filing the Form 3-R if the information to be reported is solely the result of an exchange disciplinary or access denial action.27 In 2012, the Commission eliminated the requirement that registrants and individuals use Form 3-R to update their existing Form 7-R or 8-R and provided that an update to a registrant's online Form 7-R or 8-R would automatically create a record of changes equivalent to a completed Form 3-R.28 The Commission proposed to codify the Part 3 Advisory by amending regulation 3.31(a)(1) with language that relieves applicants or registrants from the obligation to update their Form 7-R or 8-R if the information to be reported is solely the result of an exchange disciplinary or access denial action.

    27 The Part 3 Advisory also explains that the Commission has: (1) Permitted exchanges (via the Part 9 Advisory) to file either electronic or written § 9.11 notices with the NFA instead of the Commission and (2) delegated to the NFA (via the Part 9 Delegation) the duty to receive and process exchange disciplinary and access denial action information filed by the exchanges in accordance with Commission regulation 9.11. The Commission further explained that, as a result of the Part 9 Advisory and Part 9 Delegation, the NFA possesses the exchange disciplinary and access denial action information that registrants and applicants for registrant status would otherwise be required to include in Form 3-R. Therefore, to avoid duplicative reporting, the Part 3 Advisory advises all individuals and entities subject to Commission regulation 3.31 that they are relieved from Commission regulation 3.31 reporting obligations resulting from an exchange disciplinary or access denial action and reported by an exchange pursuant to a § 9.11 notice. 64 FR 39912 (July 23, 1999).

    28 77 FR 51898 (Aug. 28, 2012).

    III. Comments on the Proposal

    The comment period for the Proposal ended on March 24, 2017. The Commission received one comment letter.29 The Minneapolis Grain Exchange (“MGEX”) generally supported the Proposal while offering some suggestions for certain provisions. MGEX agreed with the Commission's general approach to modernize permitted methods of communication. For example, MGEX cited the language in proposed regulation 9.11(c) that would require an exchange only to verify that information entered into NFA's BASIC system instead of mailing a notice to the Commission as a positive change. MGEX also favorably cited proposed regulation 9.12(b) that would permit an exchange to email notice of an early effective date of disciplinary action instead of mailing it or by telegram. MGEX noted these changes reduce burdens and suggested that the Commission make similar changes to proposed regulations 9.11(c) and (d) to allow an exchange to email a disciplinary or access denial notice to the person subject to the action.

    29See https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1776.

    MGEX agreed that an exchange should publish notices of certain disciplinary actions on its website. However, MGEX requested that an exchange have flexibility regarding how it fulfills this obligation. In particular, MGEX requested that regulation 9.13 be amended to ensure that an exchange has flexibility over the format, style, and location of the notice on its website, as well as any ancillary website relating to the publication of such notices. MGEX stated that an exchange should be able to archive notices on its website after a reasonable period of time. MGEX noted that archived notices should be accessible, but an exchange should have discretion to maintain them separately on its website. In addition, MGEX indicated that there may be situations where removing a notice from its website would be appropriate and exchanges should be provided with this discretion. In support of its position, MGEX stated that the regulatory environment or exchange rules could change over time such that certain notices no longer provide educational or informative value. MGEX commented that having notices that are predicated on antiquated rules may actually confuse members, market participants, or the public. Finally, MGEX requested guidance that regulation 9.13 will be limited to disciplinary actions that were finalized after the effective date of any final rulemaking.

    IV. Final Rules and Notice and Order A. Final Rules

    The Commission, in consideration of the MGEX comment, is adopting the part 9 rules as proposed subject to the minor modifications described below. The Commission agrees with MGEX's suggestion to amend regulations 9.11(c) and (d) to allow an exchange to use email as a permitted method of delivering notice of the disciplinary or access denial action to the person subject to the action. Accordingly, the Commission is modifying 9.11(c) to allow delivery of the notice to the person's last known email address. The Commission is also amending 9.11(d) to provide that delivery of the disciplinary notice will be complete upon transmission of the email.

    The Commission also agrees with MGEX that an exchange should have flexibility over the format, style, and location of the notice on its website including any indexing or search functionality. The Commission believes that adopting the rule as proposed provides sufficient flexibility for exchanges in this regard, although the Commission notes that an exchange must ensure that access to all disciplinary notices remain readily accessible regardless of whether the exchange decides to archive notices after a reasonable period of time.

    In response to MGEX's comment requesting that exchanges should be given discretion in certain situations to remove a disciplinary notice from its website, the Commission acknowledges MGEX's concern that the regulatory environment or exchange rules could change over time and having notices that are predicated on antiquated rules may confuse members, market participants, or the public. However, the Commission believes that all disciplinary and access denial notices must be maintained on the exchange's website without the possibility of removal. Access to information regarding all exchange disciplinary and access denial actions provides valuable guidance and information to exchange members, market participants, and the public regardless of whether the regulatory environment or an exchange rule has changed. For example, the notices allow customers to consider member firms' and traders' disciplinary histories when considering whether to engage in business with them. This includes conduct by firms and traders that violated an exchange rule at the time the rule was in effect. The final rule also enables customers to consider an exchange's propensity to sanction firms and traders for rule violations when considering whether to trade on the exchange. In the limited circumstances where an exchange believes that a disciplinary notice may confuse its members, market participants, or the public as a result of a regulatory environment or exchange rule change, an exchange could address this concern by posting an attachment to the disciplinary notice that explains the nature of any such change.

    The Commission agrees with MGEX that the rulemaking should not be applied retroactively to final exchange disciplinary actions. Therefore, exchanges only will be required to publish disciplinary actions that are finalized after the effective date of the final rules.

    As discussed above, the Commission proposed to amend regulation 9.2(f) to expand the definition of “member of an exchange” to include any person who has trading privileges on an exchange. The Commission explained that this change is necessary to conform the part 9 definition of “member” to the meaning set forth in section 1a(34) of the CEA and in 1.3(q) of the Commission's regulations. The Commission is adopting the amendment to regulation 9.2(f) as proposed. The Commission notes that 9.2(f)(1) preserves the prior definition of “member of an exchange,” while the inclusion of “any person who has trading privileges on an exchange” under 9.2(f)(2) conforms the “member of an exchange” definition with the meaning set forth in section 1a(34)(B) of the CEA and regulation 1.3(q)(1)(ii).

    The Commission is also adopting the amendment to regulation 3.31(a)(1) as proposed. Therefore, the final rule relieves applicants and registrants from the obligation to update their Form 7-R or 8-R if the information to be reported is solely the result of an exchange disciplinary or access denial action.

    B. Deletion of References to Commission Form 3-R

    The Commission is making an additional technical change to regulation 3.31. As reflected in the amended text of the rule, the Commission is eliminating the references to Form 3-R from subsections (a)(1), (a)(3), (b), and (c)(1) of regulation 3.31 by deleting from these subsections the phrase “to create a Form 3-R record of change.” 30 The Commission no longer requires market participants to use the Form 3-R.31 Additionally, by separate Notice, the Commission formally proposed to cancel the Form 3-R and transfer the administrative burdens associated with that form to Forms 7-R and 8-R.32 Accordingly, the Commission is updating regulation 3.31 to reflect the retirement of Form 3-R. For these same reasons, the Commission is making a similar technical change to regulation 3.11. As reflected in the amended text of the rule, the Commission is deleting the reference to Form 3-R from subsection (b) of regulation 3.11. The Commission notes that these changes to regulations 3.11 and 3.31 are purely technical and do not affect the obligations of the individuals and entities subject to these rules.

    30 The phrase being deleted from subsection (a)(1) of regulation 3.31 is “to create a Form 3-R record of such change.”

    31 Registration of Intermediaries, 77 FR 51898 (Aug. 28, 2012).

    32 Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Revision, Comment Request: Adoption of Revised Registration Form 8-R and Cancellation of Form 3-R, 82 FR 19663, 19664 (Apr. 28, 2017).

    C. Notice and Order

    In a separate document published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the Commission issued an updated Notice and Order to replace the Part 9 Delegation from 1999 regarding the specific duties delegated by the Commission to the NFA for receiving and processing exchange disciplinary and access denial information. Among other things, the Notice and Order is being updated to account for the amendment to regulation 9.11(a) that will require exchanges to file disciplinary and access denial actions with the NFA. As discussed above, prior to this amendment, exchanges were only encouraged to file the notifications with the NFA, but not required. In addition, the updated Notice and Order includes SEFs now filing the required notices with the NFA as SEFs did not exist when the Commission issued the Part 9 Delegation and Advisory in 1999.

    Consistent with the Part 9 Delegation, the updated Notice and Order delegates to the NFA the authority to perform the following functions: (1) To process exchange disciplinary information filed by an exchange or the Commission in the BASIC system; (2) to provide the Commission with access to a Management Report summarizing all recent exchange disciplinary information and to provide the Commission with the capability to generate standardized reports on the BASIC system; (3) to assist the Commission in enforcing exchange compliance with regulation 9.11 filing requirements; and (4) to serve as the official custodian of a database containing records of all exchange disciplinary and access denial actions filed with the NFA for inclusion in the BASIC system.

    V. Related Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires federal agencies, in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules on small entities.33 The Commission did not receive any comments with respect to the RFA. The part 9 rules adopted herein will affect all SEFs and DCMs. The Commission previously established certain definitions of “small entities” to be used by the Commission in evaluating the impact of its regulations on small entities in accordance with the RFA.34 The Commission previously determined that DCMs and SEFs are not small entities for purposes of the RFA.35

    33 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    34See 47 FR 18618 through 18621 (Apr. 30, 1982).

    35See 47 FR 18618, 18619 (Apr. 30, 1982) (DCMs); 78 FR 33548 (June 4, 2013) (SEFs).

    The part 3 rules adopted herein will affect certain applicant or registrant FCMs, RFEDs, SDs, MSPs, CTAs, CPOs, IBs, FTs who are non-natural persons, and LTMs who will no longer have to file a Form 7-R or 8-R if the information to be reported is solely the result of an exchange disciplinary or access denial action. The Commission previously determined that FCMs, RFEDs, SDs, MSPs, CPOs, and LTMs are not small entities for purposes of the RFA.36 Therefore, the requirements of the RFA do not apply to those entities. With respect to CTAs, FTs, and IBs, the Commission has found it appropriate to consider whether such registrants should be deemed small entities for purposes of the RFA on a case-by-case basis, in the context of the particular Commission regulation at issue.37 As certain of these registrants may be small entities for purposes of the RFA, the Commission has considered whether the final rules will have a significant impact on these registrants.

    36See Policy Statement and Establishment of Definitions of “Small Entities” for Purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 47 FR 18618 (Apr. 30, 1982) (FCMs and CPOs); Leverage Transactions, 54 FR 41068 (Oct. 5, 1989) (LTMs); Regulation of Off-Exchange Retail Foreign Exchange Transactions and Intermediaries, 75 FR 55410, 55416 (Sept. 10, 2010) (RFEDs); and Registration of Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 77 FR 2613, 2620 (Jan. 19, 2012) (SDs and MSPs).

    37See 47 FR 18620 (Apr. 30, 1982) (CTAs); Registration of Floor Traders; Mandatory Ethics Training for Registrants; Suspension of Registrants Charged With Felonies, 58 FR 19575, 19588 (Apr. 15, 1993) (FTs); and Introducing Brokers and Associated Persons of Introducing Brokers, Commodity Trading Advisors and Commodity Pool Operators; Registration and Other Regulatory Requirements, 48 FR 35248, 35276 (Aug. 3, 1983) (IBs).

    The amendment to Commission regulation 3.31 is not substantive in nature. In 1999, the Commission published the Part 3 Advisory which relieved all applicants and registrants from filing a Form 3-R if the information to be reported is solely the result of an exchange disciplinary or access denial action.38 Beyond conforming the regulation to an established agency policy provided for in the Part 3 Advisory, the conforming amendments to regulation 3.31 will not affect the current processes or impose any new costs on small entities. The final rule codifies the filing relief set forth in the Part 3 Advisory and will not impose any new regulatory obligations on any registrant, including CTAs, FTs, and IBs.

    38 64 FR 39912 (July 23, 1999).

    The Commission does not, therefore, expect small entities to incur any additional costs as a result of the final rules. Consequently, the Commission finds that no significant economic impact on small entities will result from the final rules.

    Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), certifies that the final rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies, including the Commission, in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information, as defined by the PRA.39 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number issued by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”). The final rules contain provisions that qualify as collections of information, for which the Commission has already sought and obtained control numbers from the OMB. The titles for these collections of information are “Part 38—Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets” (OMB Control Number 3038-0052) and “Part 37—Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities” (OMB Control Number 3038-0074).

    39 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    As explained in the NPRM, the Commission did not seek to amend information collections 3038-0052 or 3038-0074 because the Commission believes that the rule modifications proposed would not impose any new information collection requirements that require approval from OMB under the PRA.40 The Commission invited public comment on the accuracy of its determination that no additional recordkeeping or information collection requirements or changes to existing collection requirements would result from the Proposal.41 The Commission did not receive any such comments. Accordingly, the Commission believes the final rules will not impact the current burden estimates for collections 3038-0052 and 3038-0074. The Commission will nevertheless, by separate action, publish in the Federal Register a notice and request for comment on the additional elements to be included as part of exchange notices, and submit to OMB an information collection request to amend the relevant information collection, in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d). As noted previously, by separate Notice published in the Federal Register, the Commission provided notice that the Form 3-R was being cancelled, and that the PRA burdens associated with Form 3-R under collections 3038-0023 and 3038-0072 were being reassigned to Forms 7-R and 8-R.42

    40 82 FR 7745-46 (Jan. 23, 2017).

    41 For collection 3038-0052, see OMB Control No. 3038-0052, available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAOMBHistory?ombControlNumber= 3038-0052. For collection 3038-0074, see OMB Control No. 3038-0074, available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAOMBHistory?ombControlNumber= 3038-0074.

    42 82 FR 19663 (Apr. 28, 2017).

    C. Cost-Benefit Considerations 1. Introduction

    Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before promulgating a regulation under the CEA or issuing certain orders.43 Section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) Protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of the markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other public interest considerations. The Commission considers the costs and benefits resulting from its discretionary determinations with respect to the section 15(a) factors.

    43 7 U.S.C. 19(a).

    The Commission considers the costs and benefits associated with the final rules, including updating the pre-existing regulatory framework to incorporate SEFs, removing references to part 8 of the Commission's regulations, and revising the reporting and notice requirements for DCMs and SEFs. The Commission compares the costs and benefits of this rulemaking against a baseline of the status quo, the current requirements under part 3 and part 9. As explained in the NPRM, and as adopted, the rules are primarily technical in nature that clarify the obligations under the current rules and generally do not impose any new costs on DCMs, SEFs, or market participants.44 Regulation 9.11(b)(3)(ii) will require the exchanges to specify in the disciplinary notices the product involved in the disciplinary action and whether the rule violation resulted in financial harm to any customers. The Commission acknowledges that these additional elements in the disciplinary notices may result in additional costs, but any such costs would be de minimis. Accordingly, the Commission addresses below the costs associated with Commission regulation 9.13 requirement for DCMs and SEFs to publish and maintain disciplinary notices on their respective websites.

    44 82 FR 7746 (Jan. 23, 2017).

    In the Proposal, the Commission sought comment concerning all aspects of the costs and benefits. The Commission did not receive any comments that specifically addressed the Cost-Benefit Considerations section of the Proposal. However, MGEX commented that the proposed amendment to regulation 9.11(c) that would allow an exchange to only have to verify that information has been entered into NFA BASIC instead of mailing a notice to the Commission, and the amendment to 9.12(b) that would permit an exchange to satisfy its obligations to deliver notice of the disciplinary or access denial action by email reduces the burden to exchanges, albeit in nominal ways. As discussed above, the Commission is amending regulations 9.11(c) and (d) to allow exchanges to satisfy their delivery obligations of the disciplinary or access denial action to the person subject to the action by email.

    Finally, in light of NFA's role and experience in performing registration functions on behalf of the Commission and as the custodian of related records (including exchange disciplinary filings), the Commission believes that it is appropriate to remove the requirement that an exchange provide written notice to the Commission of a final disciplinary action or access denial action and replace it with a requirement to provide notice to the NFA. NFA performs registration processing functions with respect to applicants and registrants and an individual's or firm's disciplinary history is a factor that must be considered in any fitness determination. Delegating to the NFA the responsibility for processing such filings and generating reports with the information amassed, should ensure that the NFA has the necessary information to continue to make appropriate registration determinations. The Commission also believes this delegation will enhance efficiency by permitting the Commission to carry out its statutory responsibilities under the CEA, while also freeing up Commission resources to be directed to other parts of its regulatory mandate.

    2. Commission Regulation 9.13—Publication of Notice

    Commission regulation 9.13 requires all DCMs and SEFs to maintain and make readily accessible final notices of exchange disciplinary and access denial actions on their websites.45 This new requirement replaces the existing requirement in Commission regulation 9.13 that exchanges publish the notice in a conspicuous place on the exchange's premises.

    45 17 CFR 9.13.

    a. Costs

    The Commission continues to believe that requiring exchanges to post final disciplinary and access denial notices to their websites will slightly increase the costs for DCMs and SEFs. The Commission notes that the additional costs incurred by DCMs and SEFs will be offset in part due to the amendment in Commission regulation 9.13 that removes the requirement of posting disciplinary and access denial notices on the premises of the respective DCM or SEF. In order to estimate the additional costs, the Commission queried the NFA's BASIC system to determine the total number of disciplinary and access denial actions filed by DCMs and SEFs in 2016.46

    46 The Commission's cost estimates in the NPRM were based on the 452 disciplinary and access denial actions filed by DCMs in 2015. Because SEFs did not post any such actions with BASIC in 2015, the cost estimates for SEFs were based on the disciplinary and access denial actions filed by DCMs in 2015, excluding the four DCMs with the largest number of reported disciplinary and access denial actions. The Commission explained that the average number of disciplinary and access denial actions by the other 11 DCMs provide a more appropriate comparison with respect to estimating the number of actions filed by SEFs annually. This average resulted in an estimate of eight disciplinary and access denial actions filed in BASIC for each SEF annually. The Commission noted that as the SEFs mature, in terms of the number of participants and volume, the number of disciplinary and access denial actions may increase accordingly. 82 FR 7746 (Jan. 23, 2017).

    Total number of reported disciplinary and access denial actions in BASIC by all DCMs: 296.

    Total number of reported disciplinary and access denial actions in BASIC by all SEFs: 15.

    The total number of exchange disciplinary and access denial actions per year for all DCMs and SEFs is estimated to be 311 (296 actions for DCMs plus 15 actions for SEFs equals 311 total actions per year). The Commission anticipates each DCM and SEF will spend an additional 15 minutes per disciplinary notice to post on the exchange's website above the current requirement of posting the notice on the exchange's premises. Accordingly, the aggregate new burden of Commission regulation 9.13 is estimated to be 77.75 hours per year for the 15 DCMs and 24 SEFs (15 minutes multiplied by 311 anticipated actions per year equals 77.75 burden hours).

    The Commission expects that a compliance officer employed by the exchange will post the disciplinary or access denial action notices to the exchange website. According to recent Bureau of Labor Statistics National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, the mean hourly wage of an employee under occupation code 13-1041, “Compliance Officers,” that is employed by the “Securities and Commodity Exchanges” industry is $46.01. Because DCMs and SEFs can be large, specialized entities that may engage employees with wages above the mean, the Commission has conservatively chosen to use a mean hourly wage of $50 per hour.47 Accordingly, the burden associated with posting the disciplinary notices on exchange websites is approximately $3,887.50 per year for all of the 15 DCMs and 24 SEFs, ($50 multiplied by the anticipated 77.75 burden hours equals $3,887.50 per year).48

    47 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages: 13-1041 Compliance Officers, (May 2014), available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes131041.htm.

    48 As noted in the NPRM, the Commission acknowledges that requiring exchanges to post final notices of disciplinary and access denial actions on their websites may necessitate additional bandwidth. The Commission anticipates that any increased costs due to added bandwidth will be insignificant in its calculation of the total annual burden associated with the final rules. 82 FR 7747 (Jan. 23, 2017).

    b. Benefits

    The Commission continues to believe that greater access to information regarding exchange disciplinary and access denial actions provides valuable guidance and information to exchange members, market participants, and the public. Releasing disciplinary information to the public serves to deter and prevent future misconduct and to improve overall compliance standards in the futures and swaps industry. It also allows customers to consider member firms' and traders' disciplinary histories when considering whether to engage in business with them. In addition, firms may use such information to educate their traders and associated persons as to compliance matters, highlighting potential violations and related sanctions. Further, any firm or individual facing allegations of rule violations may access existing disciplinary decisions to gain greater insight on related facts and sanctions. The Commission believes that the added deterrence of publishing disciplinary notices on exchange websites and the enhanced investigative and educational benefits of making such information public will ultimately decrease the incidents of wrongdoing and market abuses which benefits both market participants and the general public.

    c. Section 15(a) Factors

    As noted above, section 15(a) of the CEA requires the Commission to consider the effects of its actions in light of the following five factors:

    (1) Protection of market participants and the public. The Commission believes that market participants and the public will benefit from the ministerial and conforming amendments since they eliminate obsolete, vestigial provisions and references that otherwise could be construed to give rise to confusing inconsistencies between the Commission's regulations and the provisions of the CEA. Furthermore, the Commission believes that the amendment to regulation 9.13, which requires exchanges to publish notice of final disciplinary and access denial actions on exchange websites, increases transparency of exchange disciplinary actions and serves as a deterrence of future market abuses. These enhancements allow for operational efficiencies in oversight, increased deterrence from market abuses, and greater transparency of the exchange disciplinary process. Therefore, the Commission anticipates that the amendment to regulation 9.13 will result in improved protection of market participants and the public.

    (2) The efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of the markets. The requirement that exchanges publish disciplinary notices and access denial actions on their websites is intended to improve the operational efficiency and financial integrity of the futures and swaps markets by enabling the public and those who access an exchange website to be made aware of any disciplinary and access denial actions imposed by the exchange. By publishing the notice on the exchange's website, the Commission believes that the efficiency and financial integrity of the markets will be bolstered by the deterrent effect achieved by posting the notice in a publicly accessible medium.

    (3) Price discovery. The Commission did not identify any impact on price discovery as a result of the proposed regulations, and did not believe there would be one, but sought comment as to any potential impact. The Commission did not receive any comments on this issue. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the final regulations will not impact price discovery.

    (4) Sound risk management practices. The Commission did not identify any impact on sound risk management practices as a result of the proposed regulations, and did not believe there would be one, but sought comment as to any potential impact. The Commission did not receive any comments on this issue. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the final regulations will not impact sound risk management practices.

    (5) Other public interest considerations. The Commission has not identified any other public interest considerations.

    D. Antitrust Considerations

    Section 15(b) of the CEA requires the Commission to take into consideration the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws and endeavor to take the least anticompetitive means of achieving the objectives of the CEA in issuing any order or adopting any Commission rule or regulation. The Commission does not anticipate that the amendments adopted herein would promote or result in anticompetitive consequences or behavior.

    List of Subjects 17 CFR Part 3

    Administrative practice and procedure, Brokers, Commodity futures, Major swap participants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Swap dealers.

    17 CFR Part 9

    Administrative practice and procedure, Commodity exchanges, Commodity futures.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission amends 17 CFR chapter I as follows:

    PART 3—REGISTRATION 1. The authority citation for part 3 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552, 552b; 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6a, 6b, 6b-1, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 6o, 6p, 6s, 8, 9, 9a, 12, 12a, 13b, 13c, 16a, 18, 19, 21, and 23.

    2. In § 3.11, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 3.11 Registration of floor brokers and floor traders.

    (b) Duration of registration. A person registered as a floor broker or floor trader in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, and whose registration has neither been revoked nor withdrawn, will continue to be so registered unless such person's trading privileges on all contract markets and swap execution facilities have ceased: Provided, that if a floor broker or floor trader whose trading privileges on all contract markets and swap execution facilities have ceased for reasons unrelated to any Commission action or any contract market or swap execution facility disciplinary proceeding and whose registration is not revoked, suspended or withdrawn is granted trading privileges as a floor broker or floor trader, respectively, by any contract market or swap execution facility where such person held such privileges within the preceding sixty days, such registration as a floor broker or floor trader, respectively, shall be deemed to continue and no new Form 7-R, Form 8-R or change to Form 7-R or Form 8-R need be filed solely on the basis of the resumption of trading privileges. A floor broker or floor trader is prohibited from engaging in activities requiring registration under the Act or from representing such person to be a registrant under the Act or the representative or agent of any registrant during the pendency of any suspension of such registration or of all such trading privileges. Each contract market and swap execution facility that has granted trading privileges to a person who is registered, or has applied for registration, as a floor broker or floor trader, must provide notice in accordance with § 3.31(d) after such person's trading privileges on such contract market or swap execution facility have ceased.

    3. In § 3.31, revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3)(i), (b), and (c)(1) to read as follows:
    § 3.31 Deficiencies, inaccuracies, and changes, to be reported.

    (a)(1) Each applicant or registrant as a futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, swap dealer, major swap participant, commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, introducing broker, floor trader that is a non-natural person or leverage transaction merchant shall, in accordance with the instructions thereto, promptly correct any deficiency or inaccuracy in Form 7-R or Form 8-R that no longer renders accurate and current the information contained therein, with the exception of any change that requires withdrawal from registration under § 3.33 or any change resulting from an exchange disciplinary or access denial action. Each such correction shall be prepared and filed in accordance with the instructions thereto.

    (3) * * *

    (i) If the new principal is not a natural person, the registrant shall update such Form 7-R.

    (b) Each applicant or registrant as a floor broker, floor trader or associated person, and each principal of a futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, swap dealer, major swap participant, commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, introducing broker, floor trader that is a non-natural person, or leverage transaction merchant must, in accordance with the instructions thereto, promptly correct any deficiency or inaccuracy in the Form 8-R or supplemental statement thereto.

    (c)(1) After the filing of a Form 8-R or updating a Form 8-R by or on behalf of any person for the purpose of permitting that person to be an associated person of a futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, introducing broker, or a leverage transaction merchant, that futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, introducing broker or leverage transaction merchant must, within thirty days after the occurrence of either of the following, file a notice thereof with the National Futures Association indicating:

    (i) The failure of that person to become associated with the futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, introducing broker, or leverage transaction merchant, and the reasons therefor; or

    (ii) The termination of the association of the associated person with the futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, introducing broker, or leverage transaction merchant, and the reasons therefor.

    PART 9—RULES RELATING TO REVIEW OF EXCHANGE DISCIPLINARY, ACCESS DENIAL OR OTHER ADVERSE ACTIONS 4. The authority citation for part 9 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6b-1, 6c, 7, 7a-2, 7b-3, 8, 9, 9a, 12, 12a, 12c, 13b, 16a, 18, 19, and 21.

    5. In § 9.1, revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
    § 9.1 Scope of rules.

    (b) Matters excluded. This part does not apply to and the Commission will not accept notices of appeal, or petitions for stay pending review, of:

    (1) Any arbitration proceeding, regardless of whether the proceeding involved a controversy between members of an exchange;

    (2) Except as provided in §§ 9.11(a), (b)(3)(i) through (v), and (c), and 9.12(a) and 9.13 (concerning the notice, effective date and publication of a disciplinary or access denial action), any summary action permitted under the provisions of part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, paragraph (a)(13) of this chapter or part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, paragraph (a)(6) of this chapter imposing a minor penalty for the violation of exchange rules relating to decorum or attire, or relating to the timely submission of accurate records required for clearing or verifying each day's transactions or other similar activities; and

    (3) Any exchange action arising from a claim, grievance, or dispute involving cash market transactions which are not a part of, or directly connected with, any transaction for the purchase, sale, delivery or exercise of a commodity for future delivery, a commodity option, or a swap.

    (4) The Commission will, upon its own motion or upon motion filed pursuant to § 9.21(b), promptly notify the appellant and the exchange that it will not accept the notice of appeal or petition for stay of matters specified in this paragraph. The determination to decline to accept a notice of appeal will be without prejudice to the appellant's right to seek alternate forms of relief that may be available in any other forum.

    (c) Applicability of these part 9 rules. Unless otherwise ordered, these rules will apply in their entirety to all appeals, and matters relating thereto.

    6. In § 9.2, revise paragraphs (b), (c), (f), and (k) to read as follows:
    § 9.2 Definitions.

    (b) Disciplinary action means any suspension, expulsion or other penalty imposed on a person by an exchange for violations of rules of the exchange, including summary actions.

    (c) Exchange means a swap execution facility or any board of trade which has been designated as a contract market.

    (f) Member of an exchange means:

    (1) Any person who is admitted to membership or has been granted membership privileges on an exchange; any employee, officer, partner, director or affiliate of such member or person with membership privileges including any associated person; and any other person under the supervision or control of such member or person with membership privileges; or

    (2) Any person who has trading privileges on an exchange.

    (k) Summary action means a disciplinary action resulting in the imposition of a penalty on a person for violation of rules of the exchange permitted under the provisions of part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, paragraph (a)(10)(vi) of this chapter or part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, paragraph (a)(4) of this chapter (penalty for impeding progress of hearing); part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, paragraph (a)(14) of this chapter or part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, paragraph (a)(7) of this chapter (emergency disciplinary actions); part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, paragraph (a)(13) of this chapter (summary fines for violations of rules regarding timely submission of records); or part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, paragraph (a)(6) of this chapter (summary fines for violations of rules regarding timely submission of records, decorum, or other similar activities).

    7. Revise § 9.3 to read as follows:
    § 9.3 Provisions referenced.

    Except as otherwise provided in this part, the following provisions of the Commission's rules relating to reparations contained in part 12 of this chapter apply to this part: § 12.3 (Business address; hours); § 12.5 (Computation of time); § 12.6 (Extensions of time; adjournments; postponements); § 12.7 (Ex parte communications in reparation proceedings); and § 12.12 (Signature).

    8. In § 9.4, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as follows:
    § 9.4 Filing and service; official docket.

    (a) Filing with the Proceedings Clerk; proof of filing; proof of service. Any document that is required by this part to be filed with the Proceedings Clerk must be filed by delivering it in person or by mail to: Proceedings Clerk, Office of Proceedings, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. To be timely filed under this part, a document must be delivered or mailed to the Proceedings Clerk within the time prescribed for filing. A party must use a means of filing which is at least as expeditious as that used in serving that document upon the other parties. Proof of filing must be made by attaching to the document for filing a statement of service as provided in § 10.12(a)(6) of this chapter.

    (b) Formalities of filing—(1) Number of copies. Unless otherwise specifically provided, an original and one conformed copy of all documents filed with the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this part must be filed with the Proceedings Clerk.

    (2) Title page. All documents filed with the Proceedings Clerk must include at the head thereof, or on a title page, the name of the Commission, the title of the proceeding, the docket number (if one has been assigned by the Proceedings Clerk), the subject of the particular document and the name of the person on whose behalf the document is being filed.

    (3) Paper, spacing, type. All documents filed with the Proceedings Clerk must be typewritten, must be on one grade of good white paper no less than 8 or more than 81/2 inches wide and no less than 101/2 or more than 111/2 inches long, and must be bound on the top only. They must be double-spaced, except for long quotations (3 or more lines) and footnotes which should be single-spaced.

    (4) Signature. The original copy of all papers must be signed in ink by the person filing the same or by his or her duly authorized agent or attorney.

    (c) Service—(1) General requirements. All documents filed with the Proceedings Clerk must, at or before the time of filing, be served upon all parties. A party must use a means of service which is at least as expeditious as that used in filing that document with the Proceedings Clerk. One copy of all motions, petitions or applications made in the course of the proceeding, all notices of appeal, all briefs, and letters to the Commission or an employee thereof must be served by a party upon all other parties.

    (2) Manner of service. Service may be either personal or by mail. Service by mail is complete upon deposit of the document in the mail. Where service is effected by mail, the time within which the person served may respond thereto will be increased by three days.

    (3) Designation of person to receive service. The first document filed in a proceeding by or on behalf of any party must state on the first page the name and postal address of the person who is authorized to receive service for the party of all documents filed in the proceeding. Thereafter, service of documents must be made upon the person authorized unless service on a different authorized person or on the party himself or herself is ordered by the Commission, or unless pursuant to § 9.8 the person authorized is changed by the party upon due notice to all other parties. Parties must file and serve notification of any changes in the information provided pursuant to this subparagraph as soon as practicable after the change occurs.

    9. In § 9.8, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    § 9.8 Practice before the Commission.

    (a) * * *

    (1) By non-attorneys. An individual may appear pro se (on his or her own behalf); a general partner may represent the partnership; a bona fide officer of a corporation, trust or association may represent the corporation, trust or association.

    10. In § 9.9, revise paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) to read as follows:
    § 9.9 Waiver of rules; delegation of authority.

    (b) * * *

    (3) The General Counsel, or his or her designee, may submit to the Commission for its consideration any matter which has been delegated pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

    (4) Nothing in this section will be deemed to prohibit the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority delegated to the General Counsel, or his or her designee, under this section.

    11. Revise § 9.11 to read as follows:
    § 9.11 Form, contents and delivery of notice of disciplinary or access denial action.

    (a) When required. Whenever an exchange decision pursuant to which a disciplinary action or access denial action is to be imposed has become final, the exchange must, within thirty days thereafter, provide written notice of such action to the person against whom the action was taken and notice to the National Futures Association (“NFA”) through the NFA's Background Affiliation Status Information Center (“BASIC”) system: Provided, That a designated contract market is not required to notify the NFA of any summary action, as permitted under the provisions of part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, paragraph (a)(6) of this chapter, which results in the imposition of minor penalties for the violation of exchange rules relating to decorum or attire. No final disciplinary or access denial action may be made effective by the exchange except as provided in § 9.12.

    (b) Contents of notice. For purposes of this part:

    (1) The written notice of a disciplinary action or access denial action provided to the person against whom the action was taken by a designated contract market must be a copy of a written decision which accords with:

    (i) Part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, paragraph (a)(3) of this chapter in the case of settlement offers;

    (ii) Section 38.708 of this chapter in the case of decisions; or

    (iii) Part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, paragraph (a)(5)(iv) of this chapter in the case of appeal decisions (including copies of any materials incorporated by reference) or other written notice which must include items listed in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)—(vi) of this section.

    (2) The written notice of a disciplinary action or access denial action provided to the person against whom the action was taken by a swap execution facility must be a copy of a written decision which accords with:

    (i) Part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, paragraph (a)(9) of this chapter in the case of settlement offers;

    (ii) Section 37.206(d) of this chapter in the case of decisions; or

    (iii) Part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, paragraph (a)(11)(iv) of this chapter in the case of appeal decisions (including copies of any materials incorporated by reference) or other written notice which must include items listed in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section.

    (3) The notice of a disciplinary action or access denial action provided to the NFA must include only the items listed in the following paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v):

    (i) The name of the person against whom the disciplinary action or access denial action was taken;

    (ii) A statement of the reasons for the disciplinary action or access denial action, detailing the exchange product which was involved, as applicable, and whether the violation that resulted in the action also resulted in financial harm to any customers together with a listing of any rules which the person who was the subject of the disciplinary action or access denial action was charged with having violated or which otherwise serve as the basis of the exchange action;

    (iii) A statement of the conclusions and findings made by the exchange with regard to each rule violation charged or, in the event of settlement, a statement specifying those rule violations which the exchange has reason to believe were committed;

    (iv) The terms of the disciplinary action or access denial action;

    (v) The date on which the action was taken and the date the exchange intends to make the disciplinary or access denial action effective; and

    (vi) Except as otherwise provided in § 9.1(b), a statement informing the party subject to the disciplinary action or access denial action of the availability of Commission review of the exchange action pursuant to section 8c of the Act and this part.

    (c) Delivery and filing of the notice. Delivery of the notice must be made personally to the person who was the subject of the disciplinary action or access denial action, by mail to such person at that person's last known address, or by email to the person's last known email address. Filing of the notice with the NFA is accomplished when an authorized exchange employee verifies the accuracy of the information entered into BASIC.

    (d) Effect of delivery by mail or email. Delivery by mail to the person disciplined or denied access will be complete upon deposit in the mail of a properly addressed and postpaid document. Where delivery to the person disciplined or denied access is effected by such mail, the time within which a notice of appeal or petition for stay may be filed will be increased by three days. Delivery by email will be complete upon transmission of the email.

    (e) Certification. Copies of the notice and the submission of any additional information provided pursuant to this section must be certified as true and correct by a duly authorized officer, agent or employee of the exchange. Notice filed with the NFA is deemed certified when an authorized exchange employee verifies the accuracy of the information entered into BASIC.

    12. Revise § 9.12 to read as follows:
    § 9.12 Effective date of disciplinary or access denial action.

    (a) Effective date. Any disciplinary or access denial action taken by an exchange will not become effective until at least fifteen days after the written notice prescribed by § 9.11 is delivered to the person disciplined or denied access; Provided, however, That the exchange may cause a disciplinary action to become effective prior to that time if:

    (1) As permitted by part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, paragraph (a)(14) of this chapter or part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, paragraph (a)(7) of this chapter (emergency disciplinary actions), the exchange reasonably believes, and so states in its written decision, that immediate action is necessary to protect the best interests of the marketplace; or

    (2) As permitted by part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, paragraph (a)(10)(vi) of this chapter or part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, paragraph (a)(4) of this chapter (hearings), the exchange determines, and so states in its written decision, that the actions of a person who is within the exchange's jurisdiction has impeded the progress of a disciplinary hearing; or

    (3) As permitted by part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, paragraph (a)(13) of this chapter (summary fines for violations of rules regarding timely submission of records) or part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, paragraph (a)(6) of this chapter (summary fines for violations of rules regarding timely submission of records, decorum, or other similar activities), the exchange determines that a person has violated exchange rules relating to decorum or attire, or timely submission of accurate records required for clearing or verifying each day's transactions or other similar activities; or

    (4) The person against whom the action is taken has consented to the penalty to be imposed and to the timing of its effectiveness.

    (b) Notice of early effective date. If the exchange determines in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section that a disciplinary action will become effective prior to the expiration of fifteen days after written notice thereof, it must notify the person disciplined in writing, either personally or by email to the person's last known email address, stating the reasons for the determination. The exchange must also immediately notify the Commission by email to [email protected] Where notice is delivered by email, the time within which the person so notified may file a petition for stay pursuant to § 9.24(a)(2) will be increased by one day.

    13. Revise § 9.13 to read as follows:
    § 9.13 Publication of notice.

    Whenever an exchange suspends, expels or otherwise disciplines, or denies any person access to the exchange, it must make public its findings by disclosing at least the information contained in the notice required by § 9.11(b). An exchange must make such findings public as soon as the disciplinary action or access denial action becomes effective in accordance with the provisions of § 9.12 by posting a notice on its website to which its members and the public regularly have access. Such notice must be maintained and readily available on the exchange's website.

    14. In § 9.24, revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
    § 9.24 Petition for stay pending review.

    (a) * * *

    (2) Within ten days after a notice of summary action has been delivered in accordance with § 9.12(b) to a person who is the subject of a summary action permitted by part 37, appendix B, Core Principle 2, paragraph (a)(14) of this chapter or part 38, appendix B, Core Principle 13, paragraph (a)(7) of this chapter (emergency disciplinary actions), that person may petition the Commission to stay the effectiveness of the summary action pending completion of the exchange proceeding.

    15. Revise § 9.31 to read as follows:
    § 9.31 Commission review of disciplinary or access denial action on its own motion.

    (a) Request for additional information. Where a person disciplined or denied access has not appealed the exchange decision to the Commission, upon review of the notice specified in § 9.11, the Division of Market Oversight or the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight may request that the exchange file with the Division the record of the exchange proceeding, or designated portions of the record, a brief statement of the evidence and testimony adduced to support the exchange's findings that a rule or rules of the exchange were violated and such recordings, transcripts and other documents applicable to the particular exchange proceeding as the Division may specify. The exchange must promptly advise the person who is the subject of the disciplinary or access denial action of the Division's request. Within thirty days after service of the Division's request, the exchange must file the information requested with the Division in the manner requested by the Division and, upon request, deliver that information to the person who is the subject of the disciplinary or access denial action. Delivery to the person who is the subject of the disciplinary or access denial action must be in the manner prescribed by § 9.11(c). A person subject to the disciplinary action or access denial action requesting a copy of the information furnished to the Division must, if the exchange rules so provide, agree to pay the exchange reasonable fees for printing the copy.

    (b) Review on motion of the Commission. The Commission may institute review of an exchange disciplinary or access denial action on its own motion. Other than in extraordinary circumstances, such review will be initiated within 180 days after the NFA has received the notice of exchange action provided for in § 9.11. If the Commission should institute review on its own motion, it will issue an order permitting the person who is the subject of the disciplinary or access denial action an opportunity to file an appropriate submission, and the exchange an opportunity to file a reply thereto.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 9, 2018, by the Commission. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission. Note:

    The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    Appendix to Technical Amendments to Rules on Registration and Review of Exchange Disciplinary, Access Denial or Other Adverse Actions—Commission Voting Summary

    On this matter, Chairman Giancarlo and Commissioners Quintenz and Behnam voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.

    [FR Doc. 2018-00467 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 9 Performance of Certain Functions by the National Futures Association With Respect to the Receipt and Processing of Exchange Disciplinary and Access Denial Action Information AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and order; delegation of authority.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is updating the delegation it issued in 1999 to the National Futures Association (“NFA”) regarding the duty to receive and to process exchange disciplinary and access denial action information. The delegation is being updated to clarify, among other things, that designated contract market (“DCM”) and swap execution facility (“SEF”) disciplinary and access denial notices must be filed with the NFA instead of the Commission. The NFA will continue to serve as the official custodian of records for exchange disciplinary filings.

    DATES:

    This notice and order takes effect on March 13, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rachel Berdansky, Deputy Director, 202-418-5429 or [email protected]; David Steinberg, Associate Director, 202-418-5102 or [email protected]; Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1151 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    In a separate document published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the Commission issued final rules that update its 17 CFR part 9 rules (“Final Part 9 Rules”), including § 9.11, that sets forth the notice requirements for an exchange regarding disciplinary and access denial actions. Section 9.11 was first established in 1978 to carry out certain mandates of section 8c of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act” or “CEA”).1 Section 8c of the Act generally: (i) Requires exchanges to discipline members and to notify the disciplined individuals, the Commission, and the public of disciplinary actions; and (ii) grants the Commission the authority to review exchange disciplinary actions. Section 9.11 sets forth the manner in which an exchange is to provide that notice.

    1 43 FR 59343 (Dec. 20, 1978).

    In 1999, the Commission delegated authority to the NFA to receive and to process exchange disciplinary and access denial information (“Part 9 Delegation”).2 Consequently, the NFA currently serves as the official custodian of records for exchange disciplinary filings. In 1999, concurrent with the Part 9 Delegation, the Commission published an advisory permitting exchanges to file 9.11 notices with the Commission or the NFA (“Part 9 Advisory”).3 While permitting filing with the Commission, the Part 9 Advisory encourages exchanges to file the required notice with the NFA. The Final Part 9 Rules, among other things, codify the Part 9 Advisory and replace the § 9.11 requirement that written notice be provided to the Commission with a requirement that notice be provided to the NFA via the NFA's Background Affiliation Status Information Center (“BASIC”) system.4 Moreover, because SEFs did not exist when the Commission issued the initial delegation in 1999, this Notice and Order is being updated to reflect that the NFA will receive disciplinary and access denial action notices from SEFs in addition to DCMs.5 For purposes of this Notice and Order, the term “exchange” includes DCMs and SEFs.

    2 64 FR 39913 (July 23, 1999).

    3Id. at 39915.

    4 The NFA's BASIC system allows the public to access disciplinary information contributed by the NFA, CFTC, DCMs, and SEFs pertaining to the types of violations committed, penalties imposed, the effective date of the action, and summary of the disciplinary action. The BASIC system enables the public to conduct a search by NFA identification number, individual name, or firm name.

    5 The Final Part 9 Rules amend the definition of “exchange” in § 9.2 to include SEFs in addition to DCMs.

    II. Delegation of Duties to the NFA A. Processing Regulation 9.11 Filings

    The NFA must process exchange § 9.11 notices in a manner consistent with § 9.11. For purposes of this Notice and Order, the term “process” generally refers to receipt of filings and review of filings for compliance with applicable requirements. Section 9.11(a) requires that whenever an exchange decision, pursuant to which a disciplinary or access denial action to be imposed has become final, the exchange must provide written notice of such action to the NFA within 30 days. In addition, § 9.11 notices filed with the NFA must satisfy all of the content requirements set forth in § 9.11(b). Toward that end, notices filed with the NFA will be deemed certified when an authorized exchange employee verifies the accuracy of the information entered into BASIC.

    B. Commission Access to BASIC and Reports

    The NFA must provide the Commission with access to the BASIC system so that the Commission can diligently carry out its legislative mandate. This includes access to a Management Report that includes the following for each disciplinary or access denial action:

    • Name of Contributor (i.e., an exchange, the NFA, or the Commission);

    • Name of Respondent;

    • Contributor Reference Number (i.e., disciplinary case number generated by contributor);

    • Date of Decision or Order;

    • Date of Notification of NFA;

    • Total Number of Days for Data to be Released into BASIC (i.e., number of days from the date of an exchange final action until the date of exchange verification/certification); and

    • Name of Staff Person Entering Data (i.e., initials).

    The Commission currently has access to the BASIC system and the ability to generate 26 standardized reports that are customizable with respect to the timeframe selected (e.g., January 1, 2017 to May 31, 2017), including the Management Report. Among other things, the Commission is able to analyze the data maintained in BASIC by: Disciplinary actions against firms or individuals resulting in fines, suspensions, or expulsions; disciplinary actions issued by each exchange; and the type of rule violations across all exchanges. The Commission generates these reports on an as needed basis. As the Commission needs these reports for effective oversight of the exchanges, the NFA must continue to provide the Commission with the capability to generate each of these reports from BASIC. The NFA shall continue working with the Commission to develop additional query capabilities as the Commission deems necessary to fulfill its regulatory and oversight responsibilities.

    C. BASIC Maintenance

    The NFA shall maintain, and serve as the official custodian of, records for exchange § 9.11 filings. The NFA shall fulfill this obligation by continuing to maintain the BASIC system and further developing it as necessary to comply with the terms of this Notice and Order. The NFA shall also implement such additional procedures (or modify existing procedures) as are necessary to reasonably ensure the security and integrity of these records.

    III. Authority

    Pursuant to section 8a(10) of the Act, the Commission has issued numerous orders authorizing the NFA to perform various portions of the Commission's registration functions and responsibilities under the Act.6 In this connection, the Commission has previously issued orders authorizing the NFA to perform the full range of registration processing functions with respect to applicants for and persons registered as a: futures commission merchant, commodity pool operator, or commodity trading advisor; 7 introducing broker; 8 leverage transaction merchant; 9 floor broker; 10 floor trader; 11 retail foreign exchange dealer; 12 and swap dealer or major swap participant (collectively, registrants).13 Additionally, the NFA has adopted, and the Commission has approved, rules that govern the performance of the registration functions. For example, NFA Rule 501 pertains to the NFA's authority to deny, condition, suspend, and revoke registration for registrants. NFA Rule 504 sets forth the procedures governing applicants and registrants disqualified from registration under sections 8a(2), 8a(3), or 8a(4) of the Act.

    6 7 U.S.C. 12a(10) (2014). Further, CEA section 17(o) provides that the Commission may require a registered futures association (“RFA”) to perform Commission registration functions in accordance with the Act and the RFA's rules. 7 U.S.C. 21(o) (2014).

    7See 49 FR 39593 (Oct. 9, 1984).

    8See 48 FR 35158 (Aug. 3, 1983).

    9See 54 FR 19556 (May 8, 1989).

    10See 51 FR 34490 (Sep. 29, 1986).

    11See 58 FR 19657 (Apr. 15, 1993).

    12See 75 FR 55310 (Sep. 10, 2010).

    13See 77 FR 2708 (Jan. 19, 2012).

    In light of NFA's experience in processing and maintaining exchange disciplinary and access denial actions on behalf of the Commission, the Commission has determined that it will continue to delegate these functions to the NFA. This Notice and Order is in accord with the Commission's previous delegations to the NFA to perform registration processing functions with respect to applicants and registrants, in that, an individual's or firm's disciplinary history clearly is a factor that must be considered in any fitness determination. Deeming the NFA as the custodian of all exchange § 9.11 filings, and delegating to the NFA the responsibility for processing such filings and generating reports with the information amassed, should ensure that the NFA has the necessary information to continue to make appropriate registration determinations. Further, the Commission believes that this delegation order will enhance efficiency by permitting the Commission to carry out its statutory responsibilities under the CEA, while also freeing up Commission resources to be directed to other parts of its regulatory mandate.

    IV. Conclusion and Order

    The Commission has determined, in accordance with section 8a(10) of the Act, to delegate to the NFA the authority to perform the following functions:

    (1) To process exchange disciplinary information filed with it by an exchange or the Commission for inclusion in the BASIC system;

    (2) To provide the Commission with access to a Management Report summarizing all recent exchange disciplinary information and to provide the Commission with the capability to generate standardized reports on the BASIC system;

    (3) To assist the Commission in enforcing exchange compliance with regulation 9.11 filing requirements; and

    (4) To serve as the official custodian of a database containing records of all exchange disciplinary and access denial actions filed with the NFA for inclusion in the BASIC system.

    The NFA is authorized to perform all functions specified herein until such time as the Commission orders otherwise. Nothing in this Notice and Order shall affect the Commission's oversight authority of exchange disciplinary programs. The Commission is retaining all of its oversight authority, including its authority to review and to modify exchange disciplinary actions and to take enforcement or other remedial action against exchanges for noncompliance with § 9.11. The NFA may submit to the Commission for clarification any specific matters that have been delegated to it, and

    Commission staff will be available to discuss with NFA staff issues relating to implementation of this Notice and Order.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 9, 2018, by the Commission. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission. Appendix to Performance of Certain Functions by the National Futures Association With Respect to Regulation 9.11—Commission Voting Summary

    On this matter, Chairman Giancarlo and Commissioners Quintenz and Behnam voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.

    [FR Doc. 2018-00468 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Parts 250 and 385 [Docket No. RM18-4-000; Order No. 839] Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations governing the maximum civil monetary penalties assessable for violations of statutes, rules, and orders within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended most recently by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, requires the Commission to issue this final rule.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective January 12, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Todd Hettenbach, Attorney, Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8794 [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Order No. 839 Final Rule

    1. In this final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is complying with its statutory obligation to amend the civil monetary penalties provided by law for matters within the agency's jurisdiction.

    Background

    2. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Adjustment Act),1 which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (1990 Adjustment Act),2 required the head of each federal agency to issue a rule by July 2016 adjusting for inflation each “civil monetary penalty” provided by law within the agency's jurisdiction and to make further inflation adjustments on an annual basis every January 15 thereafter.3

    1 Sec. 701, Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584, 599.

    2 Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note).

    3 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, at (4). The Commission made its January 2017 adjustment on January 9, 2017, in Docket No. RM17-9-000. See Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments, Order No. 834, 82 FR 8137 (Jan. 24, 2017), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,390 (2017).

    II. Discussion

    3. The 2015 Adjustment Act defines a civil monetary penalty as any penalty, fine, or other sanction that: (A)(i) Is for a specific monetary amount as provided by federal law; or (ii) has a maximum amount provided for by federal law; (B) is assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to federal law; and (C) is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the federal courts.4 This definition applies to the maximum civil penalties that may be imposed under the Federal Power Act (FPA),5 the Natural Gas Act (NGA),6 the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA),7 and the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA).8

    4Id. (3).

    5 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.

    6 15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.

    7 15 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.

    8 49 App. U.S.C. 1 et seq. (1988).

    4. Under the 2015 Adjustment Act, the first step for such adjustment of a civil monetary penalty for inflation requires determining the percentage by which the U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers (CPI-U) for October of the preceding year exceeds the CPI-U for October of the year before that.9 The CPI-U for October 2017 exceeded the CPI-U for October 2016 by 2.041 percent.10

    9 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, at (5)(b)(1).

    10See, e.g., Memorandum from Mick Mulvaney, Office of Management and Budget, Implementation of the Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2018, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, 1 (Dec. 15, 2017).

    5. The second step requires multiplying the CPI-U percentage increase by the applicable existing maximum civil monetary penalty.11 This step results in a base penalty increase amount.

    11Id. (5)(a).

    6. The third step requires rounding the base penalty increase amount to the nearest dollar and adding that amount to the base penalty to calculate the new adjusted maximum civil monetary penalty.12

    12Id.

    7. Under the 2015 Adjustment Act, an agency is directed to use the maximum civil monetary penalty applicable at the time of assessment of a civil penalty, regardless of the date on which the violation occurred.13

    13Id. (6).

    8. The adjustments that the Commission is required to make pursuant to the 2015 Adjustment Act are reflected in the following table:

    Source Existing maximum civil monetary penalty New adjusted maximum civil monetary
  • penalty
  • 16 U.S.C. 825o-1(b), Sec. 316A of the Federal Power Act $1,213,503 per violation, per day $1,238,271 per violation, per day. 16 U.S.C. 823b(c),
  • Sec. 31(c) of the Federal Power Act
  • $21,916 per violation, per day $22,363 per violation, per day.
    16 U.S.C. 825n(a),
  • Sec. 315(a) of the Federal Power Act
  • $2,795 per violation $2,852 per violation.
    15 U.S.C. 717t-1,
  • Sec. 22 of the Natural Gas Act
  • $1,213,503 per violation, per day $1,238,271 per violation, per day.
    15 U.S.C. 3414(b)(6)(A)(i), Sec. 504(b)(6)(A)(i) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 $1,213,503 per violation, per day $1,238,271 per violation, per day. 49 App. U.S.C. 6(10) (1988), Sec. 6(10) of the Interstate Commerce Act $1,270 per offense and $64 per day after the first day $1,296 per offense and $65 per day after the first day. 49 App. U.S.C. 16(8) (1988), Sec. 16(8) of the Interstate Commerce Act $12,705 per violation, per day $12,964 per violation, per day. 49 App. U.S.C. 19a(k) (1988), Sec. 19a(k) of the Interstate Commerce Act $1,270 per offense, per day $1,296 per offense, per day. 49 App. U.S.C. 20(7)(a) (1988), Sec. 20(7)(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act $1,270 per offense, per day $1,296 per offense, per day.
    III. Administrative Findings

    9. Congress directed that agencies issue final rules to adjust their maximum civil monetary penalties notwithstanding the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).14 Because the Commission is required by law to undertake these inflation adjustments notwithstanding the notice and comment requirements that otherwise would apply pursuant to the APA, and because the Commission lacks discretion with respect to the method and amount of the adjustments, prior notice and comment would be impractical, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.

    14Id. (3)(b)(2).

    IV. Regulatory Flexibility Statement

    10. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, requires agencies to certify that rules promulgated under their authority will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.15 The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act apply only to rules promulgated following notice and comment.16 The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply to this rulemaking because the Commission is issuing this final rule without notice and comment.

    15 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    16 5 U.S.C. 603, 604.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    11. This rule does not require the collection of information. The Commission is therefore not required to submit this rule for review to the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.17

    17 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).

    VI. Document Availability

    12. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington DC 20426.

    13. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number (excluding the last three digits) in the docket number field.

    14. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202)-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659, [email protected]

    VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    15. For the same reasons the Commission has determined that public notice and comment are unnecessary, impractical, and contrary to the public interest, the Commission finds good cause to adopt an effective date that is less than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act,18 and therefore, the regulation is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

    18 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    16. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This Final Rule is being submitted to the Senate, House, and Government Accountability Office.

    List of Subjects 18 CFR Part 250

    Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    18 CFR Part 385

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Penalties, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: January 8, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends parts 250 and 385, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 250—FORMS 1. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    2. Amend § 250.16 by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:
    § 250.16 Format of compliance plan transportation services and affiliate transactions.

    (e) * * * (1) Any person who transports gas for others pursuant to subparts B or G of part 284 of this chapter and who knowingly violates the requirements of §§ 358.4 and 358.5, § 250.16, or § 284.13 of this chapter will be subject, pursuant to sections 311(c), 501, and 504(b)(6) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, to a civil penalty, which the Commission may assess, of not more than $1,238,271 for any one violation.

    PART 385—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 3. The authority citation for part 385 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 16 U.S.C. 791a-825v, 2601-2645; 28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C 3701, 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352, 16441, 16451-16463; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85 (1988); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (1990); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (2015).

    4. Revise § 385.1504(a) to read as follows:
    § 385.1504 Maximum civil penalty (Rule 1504).

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Commission may assess a civil penalty of up to $22,363 for each day that the violation continues.

    5. Revise § 385.1602 to read as follows:
    § 385.1602 Civil penalties, as adjusted (Rule 1602).

    The current inflation-adjusted civil monetary penalties provided by law within the jurisdiction of the Commission are:

    (a) 15 U.S.C. 3414(b)(6)(A)(i), Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978: $1,238,271.

    (b) 16 U.S.C. 823b(c), Federal Power Act: $22,363 per day.

    (c) 16 U.S.C. 825n(a), Federal Power Act: $2,852.

    (d) 16 U.S.C. 825o-1(b), Federal Power Act: $1,238,271 per day.

    (e) 15 U.S.C. 717t-1, Natural Gas Act: $1,238,271 per day.

    (f) 49 App. U.S.C. 6(10) (1988), Interstate Commerce Act: $1,296 per offense and $65 per day after the first day.

    (g) 49 App. U.S.C. 16(8) (1988), Interstate Commerce Act: $12,964 per day.

    (h) 49 App. U.S.C. 19a(k) (1988), Interstate Commerce Act: $1,296 per day.

    (i) 49 App. U.S.C. 20(7)(a) (1988), Interstate Commerce Act: $1,296 per day.

    [FR Doc. 2018-00415 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 16 [Docket No. TTB-2018-0002; Notice No. 171] Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment—Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act AGENCY:

    Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notification of civil monetary penalty adjustment.

    SUMMARY:

    This document informs the public that the maximum penalty for violations of the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act (ABLA) is being adjusted in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended. Prior to the publication of this document, any person who violated the provisions of the ABLA was subject to a civil penalty of not more than $20,111, with each day constituting a separate offense. This document announces that this maximum penalty is being increased to $20,521.

    DATES:

    The new maximum civil penalty for violations of the ABLA takes effect on January 12, 2018 and applies to penalties that are assessed after that date.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rita D. Butler, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; (202) 453-1039, ext. 101.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Statutory Authority for Federal Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments

    The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Inflation Adjustment Act), Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, section 701, 129 Stat. 584, requires the regular adjustment and evaluation of civil monetary penalties to maintain their deterrent effect and helps to ensure that penalty amounts imposed by the Federal Government are properly accounted for and collected. A “civil monetary penalty” is defined in the Inflation Adjustment Act as any penalty, fine, or other such sanction that is: (1) For a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law, or has a maximum amount provided for by Federal law; (2) assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to Federal law; and (3) assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts.

    The Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended, requires agencies to adjust civil monetary penalties by the inflation adjustment described in section 5 of the Inflation Adjustment Act no later than January 15 of every year thereafter. The Act also provides that any increase in a civil monetary penalty shall apply only to civil monetary penalties, including those whose associated violation predated such an increase, which are assessed after the date the increase takes effect.

    The Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended, provides that the inflation adjustment does not apply to civil monetary penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or the Tariff Act of 1930.

    Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act

    The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act) pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013, (superseding Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.

    The FAA Act contains the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act (ABLA) of 1988, Public Law 100-690, 27 U.S.C. 213-219a, which was enacted on November 18, 1988. Section 204 of the ABLA, codified in 27 U.S.C. 215, requires that a health warning statement appear on the labels of all containers of alcoholic beverages manufactured, imported, or bottled for sale or distribution in the United States, as well as on containers of alcoholic beverages that are manufactured, imported, bottled, or labeled for sale, distribution, or shipment to members or units of the U.S. Armed Forces, including those located outside the United States.

    The health warning statement requirement applies to containers of alcoholic beverages manufactured, imported, or bottled for sale or distribution in the United States on or after November 18, 1989. The statement reads as follows:

    GOVERNMENT WARNING: (1) According to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects. (2) Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery, and may cause health problems.

    Section 204 of the ABLA also specifies that the Secretary of the Treasury shall have the power to ensure the enforcement of the provisions of the ABLA and issue regulations to carry out them out. In addition, section 207 of the ABLA, codified in 27 U.S.C. 218, provides that any person who violates the provisions of the ABLA is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000, with each day constituting a separate offense.

    Most of the civil monetary penalties administered by TTB are imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and thus are not subject to the inflation adjustment mandated by the Inflation Adjustment Act. The only civil monetary penalty enforced by TTB that is subject to the inflation adjustment is the penalty imposed by the ABLA at 27 U.S.C. 218.

    TTB Regulations

    The TTB regulations implementing the ABLA are found in 27 CFR part 16, and the regulations implementing the Inflation Adjustment Act with respect to the ABLA penalty are found in 27 CFR 16.33. This section indicates that the ABLA provides that any person who violates the provisions of this part shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000, but also states that, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended, this civil penalty is subject to periodic cost-of-living adjustment. Accordingly, any person who violates the provisions of 27 CFR part 16 shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than the amount listed at https://www.ttb.gov/regulation_guidance/ablapenalty.html. Each day shall constitute a separate offense.

    To adjust the penalty, § 16.33(b) indicates that TTB will provide notice in the Federal Register and at the website mentioned above of cost-of-living adjustments to the civil penalty for violations of 27 CFR part 16.

    Penalty Adjustment

    In this document, TTB is publishing its yearly adjustment to the maximum ABLA penalty, as required by the amended Inflation Adjustment Act.

    As mentioned earlier, the ABLA contains a maximum civil monetary penalty. For such penalties, Section 5 of the Inflation Adjustment Act indicates that the inflation adjustment shall be determined by increasing the maximum penalty by the cost-of-living adjustment. The cost-of-living adjustment means the percentage (if any) by which the Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment exceeds the CPI-U for the month of October 1 year before the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment.

    The CPI-U in October 2016 was 241.729, and the CPI-U in October 2017 was 246.663. The rate of inflation between October 2016 and October 2017 is therefore 2.041 percent. When applied to the current ABLA penalty of $20,111, this rate of inflation yields a raw (unrounded) inflation adjustment of $410.46551. Rounded to the nearest dollar, the inflation adjustment is $410, meaning that the new maximum civil penalty for violations of the ABLA will be $20,521.

    The new maximum civil penalty will apply to all penalties that are assessed after January 12, 2018. TTB will also update its web page at https://www.ttb.gov/regulation_guidance/ablapenalty.html to reflect the adjusted penalty.

    Dated: January 8, 2018. Amy R. Greenberg, Director, Regulations and Rulings Division.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00417 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
    PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Part 4022 Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits AGENCY:

    Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the regulation for valuation dates in February 2018. The interest assumptions are used for paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.

    DATES:

    Effective February 1, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daniel S. Liebman ([email protected]), Acting Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4400 ext. 6510. (TTY/ASCII users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4400, ext. 6510.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminated single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's website (http://www.pbgc.gov).

    PBGC uses the interest assumptions in appendix B to part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.

    The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for February 2018.1

    1 Appendix B to PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) prescribes interest assumptions for valuing benefits under terminating covered single-employer plans for purposes of allocation of assets under ERISA section 4044. Those assumptions are updated quarterly.

    The February 2018 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 0.75 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for January 2018, these assumptions are unchanged.

    PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.

    Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during February 2018, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

    PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

    Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4022

    Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:

    PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN TERMINATED SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 4022 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.

    2. In appendix B to part 4022, Rate Set 292 is added at the end of the table to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates for PBGC Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate
  • annuity rate
  • (percent)
  • Deferred annuities
  • (percent)
  • i 1 i 2 i 3 n 1 n 2
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 292 2-1-18 3-1-18 0.75 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8
    3. In appendix C to part 4022, Rate Set 292 is added at the end of the table to read as follows: Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates for Private-Sector Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate
  • annuity rate
  • (percent)
  • Deferred annuities
  • (percent)
  • i 1 i 2 i 3 n 1 n 2
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 292 2-1-18 3-1-18 0.75 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8

    Issued in Washington, DC.

    Daniel S. Liebman, Acting Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00348 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-02-P
    PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Parts 4071 and 4302 RIN 1212-AB45 Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation AGENCY:

    Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is required to amend its regulations annually to adjust for inflation the maximum civil penalty for failure to provide certain notices or other material information and for failure to provide certain multiemployer plan notices.

    DATES:

    Effective date: This rule is effective on January 12, 2018.

    Applicability date: The increases in the civil monetary penalties under sections 4071 and 4302 provided for in this rule apply to such penalties assessed after January 12, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Cibinic, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs ([email protected]), Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005-4026; 202-326-4400 extension 6352. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4400 extension 6352.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    This rule is needed to carry out the requirements of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 and Office of Management and Budget guidance M-18-03. The rule adjusts, as required for 2018, the maximum civil penalties under 29 CFR part 4071 and 29 CFR part 4302 that PBGC may assess for failure to provide certain notices or other material information and certain multiemployer plan notices.

    PBGC's legal authority for this action comes from the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 and from sections 4002(b)(3), 4071, and 4302 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

    Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

    This rule adjusts as required by law the maximum civil penalties that PBGC may assess under sections 4071 and 4302 of ERISA. The new maximum amounts are $2,140 for section 4071 penalties and $285 for section 4302 penalties.

    Background

    The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) administers title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Title IV has two provisions that authorize PBGC to assess civil monetary penalties.1 Section 4302, added to ERISA by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, authorizes PBGC to assess a civil penalty of up to $100 a day for failure to provide a notice under subtitle E of title IV of ERISA (dealing with multiemployer plans). Section 4071, added to ERISA by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, authorizes PBGC to assess a civil penalty of up to $1,000 a day for failure to provide a notice or other material information under subtitles A, B, and C of title IV and sections 303(k)(4) and 306(g)(4) of title I of ERISA.

    1 Under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, a penalty is a civil monetary penalty if (among other things) it is for a specific monetary amount or has a maximum amount specified by Federal law. Title IV also provides (in section 4007) for penalties for late payment of premiums, but those penalties are neither in a specified amount nor subject to a specified maximum amount.

    Adjustment of Civil Penalties

    On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015,2 which requires agencies to adjust civil monetary penalties for inflation and to publish the adjustments in the Federal Register. An initial adjustment was required to be made by interim final rule published by July 1, 2016, and effective by August 1, 2016. Subsequent adjustments must be promulgated in January each year after 2016. In an interim final rule published on May 13, 2016 (at 81 FR 29765), PBGC adjusted the maximum penalty under section 4071 to $2,063 and adjusted the maximum penalty under section 4302 to $275.3 In a final rule published on January 31, 2017 (at 82 FR 8813), PBGC finalized its interim final rule and adjusted the maximum penalty under section 4071 to $2,097 and the maximum penalty under section 4302 to $279.4

    2 Sec. 701, Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 599-601 (Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015).

    3 The Office of Management and Budget issued memorandum M-16-06 on implementation of the 2015 act, including multipliers to use in the initial adjustment.

    4 The Office of Management and Budget issued memorandum M-17-11 on December 16, 2016, on implementation of the 2015 act, including the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2017.

    On December 15, 2017, the Office of Management and Budget issued memorandum M-18-03 on implementation of the 2018 annual inflation adjustment pursuant to the 2015 act.5 The memorandum provides agencies with the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2018, which is based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for the month of October 2017, not seasonally adjusted. The multiplier for 2018 is 1.02041. The adjusted maximum amounts are $2,140 for section 4071 penalties and $285 for section 4302 penalties.

    5https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/M-18-03.pdf

    Compliance With Regulatory Requirements

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and therefore not subject to their review. As this is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, it is not considered an E.O. 13771 regulatory action.

    The Office of Management and Budget also has determined that notice and public comment on this final rule are unnecessary because the adjustment of civil penalties implemented in the rule is required by law. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

    Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

    List of Subjects 29 CFR Part 4071

    Penalties.

    29 CFR Part 4302

    Penalties.

    In consideration of the foregoing, PBGC amends 29 CFR parts 4071 and 4302 as follows:

    PART 4071—PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CERTAIN NOTICES OR OTHER MATERIAL INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 4071 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599-601; 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1371.

    § 4071.3 [Amended]
    2. In § 4071.3, the figures “$2,097” are removed and the figures “$2,140” are added in their place. PART 4302—PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CERTAIN MULTIEMPLOYER PLAN NOTICES 3. The authority citation for part 4302 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599-601; 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1452.

    § 4302.3 [Amended]
    4. In § 4302.3, the figures “$279” are removed and the figures “$285” are added in their place.

    Issued in Washington, DC.

    W. Thomas Reeder, Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00406 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 205 [Docket ID: DOD-2017-OS-0004] RIN 0790-AJ05 End Use Certificates (EUCs) AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule removes DoD's regulation concerning the signing of EUCs required by foreign governments for foreign defense items purchased by the United States. DoD has determined that this part does not place a burden on the public as it deals with matters internal to DoD. DoD signs end use certificates (following internal coordination and approval) at the behest of a foreign country, when DoD is buying products from that country. Therefore, this part is unnecessary and can be removed from the CFR.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on January 12, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Kay at 703-693-0909.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing DoD internal policies and procedures that are publically available on the Department's issuance website. Once signed, a copy of DoD's internal guidance contained in DoD Directive 2040.03 will be made available at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Directives/issuances/dodd/.

    This rule is being removed from the CFR because it does not place a burden on the public as it deals with matters internal to DoD. As a direct result of there being no burden on the public, there was never was a cost to the public to execute this rule, therefore, removing it does not provide a cost savings to the public.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 205

    Government procurement.

    PART 205—[REMOVED] Accordingly, under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 205 is removed. Dated: January 9, 2018. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00473 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Parts 350, 356, 359, 364, 365, and 366 RIN 1820-AB75; 1820-AB76 National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) and Independent Living Programs, Outdated, Superseded Regulations AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Final regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary removes outdated, superseded regulations for five programs no longer administered by the Department: The Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, the Research Fellowships program, the Special Projects and Demonstrations for Spinal Cord Injuries program, the State Independent Living Services program, and the Centers for Independent Living program. In 2014, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act transferred these programs to the Department of Health and Human Services, which has adopted regulations for them.

    DATES:

    These regulations are effective January 12, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kate Friday, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room 5104 PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2500. Telephone: (202) 245-7605 or email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On February 24, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. Section 3(a) of the Executive Order directed each Federal agency to establish a regulatory reform task force, the duty of which is to evaluate existing regulations and “make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification.” Accordingly, the Secretary removes 34 CFR parts 350, 356, 359, 364, 365, and 366 because they have been superseded.

    In 2014, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 113-128) made significant changes to many programs administered by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS). WIOA transferred the National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), its functions, and its programs from OSERS to the Administration for Community Living (ACL) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In the process, WIOA renamed NIDRR the National Institute for Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR). (See, WIOA sections 433, 435, 491(n).) The programs transferred were the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers program, the Research Fellowships program, and the Special Projects and Demonstrations for Spinal Cord Injuries program.

    WIOA also created within ACL the Independent Living Administration and transferred to it two programs from the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) within OSERS, namely the State Independent Living Services program and the Centers for Independent Living program (WIOA sections 471-484, 491(b)).

    To ensure that there would be no interruption in funding for, or services provided by, these five programs during their transfer, WIOA kept the regulations for those programs in effect until they were properly “modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or revoked” (WIOA sections 491(i)(1), 491(n)(3)(A)). The regulations for the five transferred programs are:

    Program Regulations
  • 34 CFR part(s)
  • Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program 350 Research Fellowships 356 Special Projects and Demonstrations for Spinal Cord Injuries 359 State Independent Living Services 364, 365 Centers for Independent Living 364, 366

    The Department and HHS completed all transfers from OSERS to ACL on March 30, 2015.

    On May 11, 2016, HHS published final regulations for NIDILRR's three programs, superseding 34 CFR parts 350, 356, and 359, and combines them into a single part, now codified at 45 CFR part 1330. Those three programs are now titled the Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program; the Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Fellowships program; and the Special Projects and Demonstrations for Spinal Cord Injuries program (81 FR 29156).

    On October 27, 2016, HHS published final regulations for the two programs transferred from RSA, superseding 34 CFR parts 364, 365, and 366. HHS did not change the names of the State Independent Living Services program or the Centers for Independent Living program, but combined all Independent Living program regulations and codified them at 45 CFR part 1329. (81 FR 74682).

    Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking

    Under the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, this regulatory action merely removes regulations that are unnecessary because administration of the regulations and the affected programs has been transferred to another agency. This regulatory action adopts no new regulations and does not establish or affect substantive policy. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Secretary has determined that proposed regulations are unnecessary, and, thus, waives notice and comment rulemaking.

    The APA also requires that regulations be published at least 30 days before their effective date, unless the agency has good cause to implement its regulations sooner (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). Again, because the final regulations merely remove regulations that are unnecessary because administration of the regulations and the affected programs has been transferred to another agency, the Secretary is also waiving the 30-day delay in the effective date of these regulatory changes under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

    This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

    Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two deregulatory actions. For FY 2018, any new incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because this final rule is not a significant regulatory action, the requirement to offset new regulations in Executive Order 13771 does not apply.

    We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

    (2) Tailor their regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things, and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and

    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

    We are issuing this regulatory action only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected the approach that maximizes net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that these regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

    We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

    Need for the Regulatory Action

    This regulatory action is necessary to comply with Executive Order 13777 and to remove superseded regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

    Analysis of Costs and Benefits

    This regulatory action is a benefit to the public, grant recipients, and the Department as the action will remove any confusion that might be caused by maintaining superseded regulations in the CFR.

    The Department has also analyzed the costs of this regulatory action and has determined that it will impose no additional costs ($0). As detailed earlier, this regulatory action removes superseded regulations for five programs that WIOA transferred from OSERS to HHS and adopts no new ones. In 2016, HHS adopted regulations for the Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program; the Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Fellowships program; the Special Projects and Demonstrations for Spinal Cord Injuries program; the State Independent Living Services program; and the Centers for Independent Living program. See, 81 FR 29156 (May 11, 2016); 81 FR 74682 (October 27, 2016).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that this regulatory action does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As detailed above, this regulatory action merely removes superseded regulations from the CFR and imposes no costs.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This regulatory action does not contain any information collection requirements. The previously OMB-approved information collections that were contained in parts 350, 356, 364, and 366 are no longer active information collections with the Department of Education. These information collections were transferred to HHS under WIOA in May 2015 and March 2016, removing 1820-0027 and 1820-0527 from ED inventory and transferring part 366 from 1820-0018. The information collections under OMB 1820-0027 (parts 350 and 356), OMB 1820-0527 (part 364), and OMB 1820-0018 (part 366 only) are not contained in this regulatory action.

    Intergovernmental Review

    Some of these programs are subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    List of Subjects 34 CFR Part 350

    Grant programs—education; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Research; Vocational rehabilitation.

    34 CFR Part 356

    Grant programs—education; Human research subjects; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Research; Scholarships and fellowships; Vocational rehabilitation.

    34 CFR Part 359

    Grant programs—education; Research; Vocational rehabilitation.

    34 CFR Part 364

    Grant programs—education; Grant programs—social programs; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Vocational rehabilitation.

    34 CFR Part 365

    Grant programs—education; Grant programs—social programs; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Vocational rehabilitation.

    34 CFR Part 366

    Grant programs—social programs; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Vocational rehabilitation.

    Dated: January 8, 2018. Kimberly M. Richey, Deputy Assistant Secretary, delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and under the authority of section 414 of the Department of Education Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. 3474, the Secretary of Education amends chapter III of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 350 [Removed and Reserved] 1. Part 350 is removed and reserved. PART 356 [Removed and Reserved] 2. Part 356 is removed and reserved. PART 359 [Removed and Reserved] 3. Part 359 is removed and reserved. PART 364 [Removed and Reserved] 4. Part 364 is removed and reserved. PART 365 [Removed and Reserved] 5. Part 365 is removed and reserved. PART 366 [Removed and Reserved] 6. Part 366 is removed and reserved.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00475 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Part 2 [Docket No. PTO-T-2017-0054] RIN 0651-AD29 Changes in Requirements for Collective Trademarks and Service Marks, Collective Membership Marks, and Certification Marks; Correction AGENCY:

    United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correcting amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office published in the Federal Register on June 11, 2015 a final rule, which became effective on July 11, 2015, revising the Trademark Rules of Practice. This document reinstates three paragraphs, which were inadvertently deleted as a result of an error in the amendatory instructions.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective January 12, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Catherine Cain, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, by email at [email protected], or by telephone at (571) 272-8946.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The USPTO issues this final rule to correct an inadvertent error in § 2.193(e)(1) of its June 11, 2015 final rule revising the Trademark Rules of Practice (80 FR 33170) (published under RIN 0651-AC89).

    The June 11, 2015 final rule amended the introductory text of § 2.193(e)(1) to correspond with new § 2.2(n). However, the amendatory instruction inadvertently instructed that § 2.193(e)(1)(i)-(iii) be deleted. This correction revises the amendatory instruction and thereby reinstates paragraphs (i)-(iii).

    This rule is issued without prior notice and opportunity for comment as this correction is procedural/interpretative in nature, and is being implemented to avoid inconsistencies and confusion with the rule issued on June 11, 2015. Additionally, as this correction rule is nonsubstantive, it is effective immediately upon publication.

    Rulemaking Requirements

    Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs): This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

    List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority contained in 15 U.S.C. 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 2, as amended, the Office amends part 2 of title 37 as follows:

    PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRADEMARK CASES 1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, Section 10(c) of Pub. L. 112-29, unless otherwise noted.

    2. In § 2.193, revise paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:
    § 2.193 Trademark correspondence and signature requirements.

    (e) * * *

    (1) Verified statement of facts. A verified statement in support of an application for registration, amendment to an application for registration, allegation of use under §  2.76 or §  2.88, request for extension of time to file a statement of use under §  2.89, or an affidavit under section 8, 12(c), 15, or 71 of the Act must satisfy the requirements of §  2.2(n), and be signed by the owner or a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the owner. A person who is properly authorized to verify facts on behalf of an owner is:

    (i) A person with legal authority to bind the owner (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership);

    (ii) A person with firsthand knowledge of the facts and actual or implied authority to act on behalf of the owner; or

    (iii) An attorney as defined in § 11.1 of this chapter who has an actual written or verbal power of attorney or an implied power of attorney from the owner.

    Dated: January 8, 2018. Joseph D. Matal, Associate Solicitor Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00428 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0061; FRL-9972-28-Region 6] National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to Texas AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule; delegation of authority.

    SUMMARY:

    The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has submitted updated regulations for receiving delegation of the EPA authority for implementation and enforcement of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources). These regulations apply to certain NESHAPs promulgated by the EPA, as amended between April 24, 2013 and August 3, 2016. The delegation of authority under this action does not apply to sources located in Indian Country. The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the delegation of certain NESHAPs to TCEQ.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on March 13, 2018 without further notice, unless the EPA receives relevant adverse comment by February 12, 2018. If the EPA receives such comment, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0061, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Rick Barrett, 214-665-7227, [email protected] For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Rick Barrett (6MM-AP), (214) 665-7227; email: [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Mr. Rick Barrett or Mr. Bill Deese at (214) 665-7253.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. What does this action do? II. What is the authority for delegation? III. What criteria must Texas' program meet to be approved? IV. How did TCEQ meet the approval criteria? V. What is being delegated? VI. What is not being delegated? VII. How will applicability determinations under section 112 be made? VIII. What authority does the EPA have? IX. What information must TCEQ provide to the EPA? X. What is the EPA's oversight role? XI. Should sources submit notices to the EPA or TCEQ? XII. How will unchanged authorities be delegated to TCEQ in the future? XIII. Final action XIV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What does this action do?

    The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the delegation of certain NESHAPs to TCEQ. With this delegation, TCEQ has the primary responsibility to implement and enforce the delegated standards. See sections V and VI, below, for a discussion of which standards are being delegated and which are not being delegated.

    II. What is the authority for delegation?

    Section 112(l) of the CAA, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, authorizes the EPA to delegate authority to any State or local agency which submits adequate regulatory procedures for implementation and enforcement of emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. The hazardous air pollutant standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63.

    III. What criteria must Texas' program meet to be approved?

    Section 112(l)(5) of the CAA enables the EPA to approve State air toxics programs or rules to operate in place of the Federal air toxics program or rules. 40 CFR part 63, subpart E (subpart E) governs the EPA's approval of State rules or programs under section 112(l).

    The EPA will approve an air toxics program if we find that:

    (1) The State program is “no less stringent” than the corresponding Federal program or rule;

    (2) The State has adequate authority and resources to implement the program;

    (3) The schedule for implementation and compliance is sufficiently expeditious; and

    (4) The program otherwise complies with Federal guidance.

    In order to obtain approval of its program to implement and enforce Federal section 112 rules as promulgated without changes (straight delegation), only the criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d) must be met. 40 CFR 63.91(d)(3) provides that interim or final Title V program approval will satisfy the criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d) for part 70 sources (sources required to obtain operating permits pursuant to Title V of the Clean Air Act). The NESHAPs delegation was most recently approved on November 25, 2014 (79 FR 70102).

    IV. How did TCEQ meet the subpart E approval criteria?

    As part of its Title V submission, TCEQ stated that it intended to use the mechanism of incorporation by reference to adopt unchanged Federal section 112 standards into its regulations. This commitment applied to both existing and future standards as they applied to part 70 sources ((60 FR 30444 (June 7, 1995) and 61 FR 32699 (June 25, 1996)). On December 6, 2001, the EPA promulgated final full approval of the State's operating permits program effective November 30, 2001 (66 FR 63318). TCEQ was originally delegated the authority to implement certain NESHAPs effective May 17, 2005 (70 FR 13108). Under 40 CFR 63.91(d)(2), once a State has satisfied up-front approval criteria, it needs only to reference the previous demonstration and reaffirm that it still meets the criteria for any subsequent submittals. TCEQ has affirmed that it still meets the up-front approval criteria.

    V. What is being delegated?

    By letter dated January 12, 2017, TCEQ requested the EPA to update its existing NESHAP delegation. With certain exceptions noted in section VI below, TCEQ requests delegation of certain Part 63 NESHAPs for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources). TCEQ's request included newly incorporated NESHAPs promulgated by the EPA and amendments to existing standards currently delegated, as amended between April 24, 2013 and August 3, 2016. These NESHAP were adopted by TCEQ on December 7, 2016.

    VI. What is not being delegated?

    The EPA cannot delegate to a State any of the Category II Subpart A authorities set forth in 40 CFR 63.91(g)(2). These include the following provisions: § 63.6(g), Approval of Alternative Non-Opacity Standards; § 63.6(h)(9), Approval of Alternative Opacity Standards; § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Test Methods; § 63.8(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Monitoring; and § 63.10(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Recordkeeping and Reporting. In addition, some Part 63 standards have certain provisions that cannot be delegated to the States. Therefore, any Part 63 standard that the EPA is delegating to TCEQ that provides that certain authorities cannot be delegated are retained by the EPA and not delegated. Furthermore, no authorities are delegated that require rulemaking in the Federal Register to implement, or where Federal overview is the only way to ensure national consistency in the application of the standards or requirements of CAA section 112. Finally, section 112(r), the accidental release program authority, is not being delegated by this approval.

    All of the inquiries and requests concerning implementation and enforcement of the excluded standards in the State of Texas should be directed to the EPA Region 6 Office.

    In addition, this delegation to TCEQ to implement and enforce certain NESHAPs does not extend to sources or activities located in Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Under this definition, the EPA treats as reservations, trust lands validly set aside for the use of a Tribe even if the trust lands have not been formally designated as a reservation. Consistent with previous federal program approvals or delegations, the EPA will continue to implement the NESHAPs in Indian country because TCEQ has not submitted information to demonstrate authority over sources and activities located within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations and other areas in Indian country.

    VII. How will applicability determinations under section 112 be made?

    In approving this delegation, TCEQ will seek concurrence from the EPA on any matter involving the interpretation of section 112 of the CAA or 40 CFR part 63 to the extent that application, implementation, administration, or enforcement of these sections have not been covered by the EPA determinations or guidance.

    VIII. What authority does the EPA have?

    We retain the right, as provided by CAA section 112(l)(7), to enforce any applicable emission standard or requirement under section 112. The EPA also has the authority to make certain decisions under the General Provisions (subpart A) of part 63. We are granting TCEQ some of these authorities, and retaining others, as explained in sections V and VI above. In addition, the EPA may review and disapprove of State determinations and subsequently require corrections. (See 40 CFR 63.91(g) and 65 FR 55810, 55823, September 14, 2000, as amended at 70 FR 59887, October 13, 2005; 72 FR 27443, May 16, 2007.)

    Furthermore, we retain any authority in an individual emission standard that may not be delegated according to provisions of the standard. Also, listed in the footnotes of the part 63 delegation table at the end of this rule are the authorities that cannot be delegated to any State or local agency which we therefore retain.

    IX. What information must TCEQ provide to the EPA?

    TCEQ must provide any additional compliance related information to the EPA, Region 6, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance within 45 days of a request under 40 CFR 63.96(a). In receiving delegation for specific General Provisions authorities, TCEQ must submit to the EPA Region 6 on a semi-annual basis, copies of determinations issued under these authorities. For part 63 standards, these determinations include: Section 63.1, Applicability Determinations; Section 63.6(e), Operation and Maintenance Requirements—Responsibility for Determining Compliance; Section 63.6(f), Compliance with Non-Opacity Standards—Responsibility for Determining Compliance; Section 63.6(h), Compliance with Opacity and Visible Emissions Standards—Responsibility for Determining Compliance; Sections 63.7(c)(2)(i) and (d), Approval of Site-Specific Test Plans; Section 63.7(e)(2)(i), Approval of Minor Alternatives to Test Methods; Section 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), Approval of Intermediate Alternatives to Test Methods; Section 63.7(e)(iii), Approval of Shorter Sampling Times and Volumes When Necessitated by Process Variables or Other Factors; Sections 63.7(e)(2)(iv), (h)(2), and (h)(3), Waiver of Performance Testing; Sections 63.8(c)(1) and (e)(1), Approval of Site-Specific Performance Evaluation (Monitoring) Test Plans; Section 63.8(f), Approval of Minor Alternatives to Monitoring; Section 63.8(f), Approval of Intermediate Alternatives to Monitoring; Section 63.9 and 63.10, Approval of Adjustments to Time Periods for Submitting Reports; Section 63.10(f), Approval of Minor Alternatives to Recordkeeping and Reporting; Section 63.7(a)(4), Extension of Performance Test Deadline.

    X. What is the EPA's oversight role?

    The EPA must oversee TCEQ's decisions to ensure the delegated authorities are being adequately implemented and enforced. We will integrate oversight of the delegated authorities into the existing mechanisms and resources for oversight currently in place. If, during oversight, we determine that TCEQ made decisions that decreased the stringency of the delegated standards, then TCEQ shall be required to take corrective actions and the source(s) affected by the decisions will be notified, as required by 40 CFR 63.91(g)(1)(ii). We will initiate withdrawal of the program or rule if the corrective actions taken are insufficient.

    XI. Should sources submit notices to the EPA or TCEQ?

    For the NESHAPs being delegated and included in the table below, all of the information required pursuant to the general provisions and the relevant subpart of the Federal NESHAP (40 CFR part 63) should be submitted by sources located outside of Indian country, directly to TCEQ at the following address: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Permitting, Remediation and Registration, Air Permits Division (MC 163), P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. TCEQ is the primary point of contact with respect to delegated NESHAPs. Sources do not need to send a copy to the EPA. The EPA Region 6 waives the requirement that notifications and reports for delegated standards be submitted to the EPA in addition to TCEQ in accordance with 40 CFR 63.9(a)(4)(ii) and 63.10(a)(4)(ii).1 For those standards that are not delegated, sources must continue to submit all appropriate information to the EPA.

    1 This waiver only extends to the submission of copies of notifications and reports; EPA does not waive the requirements in delegated standards that require notifications and reports be submitted to an electronic database (e.g., 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH).

    XII. How will unchanged authorities be delegated to TCEQ in the future?

    In the future, TCEQ will only need to send a letter of request to the EPA, Region 6, for NESHAP regulations that TCEQ has adopted by reference. The letter must reference the previous up-front approval demonstration and reaffirm that it still meets the up-front approval criteria. We will respond in writing to the request stating that the request for delegation is either granted or denied. A Federal Register action will be published to inform the public and affected sources of the delegation, indicate where source notifications and reports should be sent, and to amend the relevant portions of the Code of Federal Regulations showing which NESHAP standards have been delegated to TCEQ.

    XIII. Final Action

    The public was provided the opportunity to comment on the proposed approval of the program and mechanism for delegation of section 112 standards, as they apply to part 70 sources, on June 7, 1995, for the proposed interim approval of TCEQ's Title V operating permits program; and on October 11, 2001, for the proposed final approval of TCEQ's Title V operating permits program. In the EPA's final full approval of Texas' Operating Permits Program on December 6, 2001 (66 FR 63318), the EPA discussed the public comments on the proposed final delegation of the Title V operating permits program. In today's action, the public is given the opportunity to comment on the approval of TCEQ's request for delegation of authority to implement and enforce certain section 112 standards for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources) which have been adopted by reference into Texas' state regulations. However, the Agency views the approval of these requests as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. Therefore, the EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this issue of the Federal Register, the EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the program and delegation of authority described in this action if relevant adverse comments are received. This action will be effective March 13, 2018 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by February 12, 2018.

    If the EPA receives relevant adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if we receive relevant adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of a relevant adverse comment.

    XIV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    The delegation is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state request to receive delegation of certain Federal standards, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

    In reviewing delegation submissions, the EPA's role is to approve submissions, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), the EPA has no authority to disapprove a delegation submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA to use VCS in place of a delegation submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 13, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: January 4, 2018. Wren Stenger, Director, Multimedia Division, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 63 is amended as follows:

    PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart E—Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal Authorities 2. Section 63.99 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(44)(i) to read as follows:
    § 63.99 Delegated Federal authorities.

    (a) * * *

    (44) * * *

    (i) The following table lists the specific part 63 standards that have been delegated unchanged to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for all sources. The “X” symbol is used to indicate each subpart that has been delegated. The delegations are subject to all of the conditions and limitations set forth in Federal law and regulations. Some authorities cannot be delegated and are retained by the EPA. These include certain General Provisions authorities and specific parts of some standards. Any amendments made to these rules after August 3, 2016 are not delegated.

    Delegation Status for Part 63 Standards—State of Texas 1 [Excluding Indian Country] Subpart Source category TCEQ 2 A General Provisions X F Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)—Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) X G HON—SOCMI Process Vents, Storage Vessels, Transfer Operations and Wastewater X H HON—Equipment Leaks X I HON—Certain Processes Negotiated Equipment Leak Regulation X J Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production (3) K (Reserved) L Coke Oven Batteries X M Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning X N Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks X O Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers X P (Reserved) Q Industrial Process Cooling Towers X R Gasoline Distribution X S Pulp and Paper Industry X T Halogenated Solvent Cleaning X U Group I Polymers and Resins X V (Reserved) W Epoxy Resins Production and Non-Nylon Polyamides Production X X Secondary Lead Smelting X Y Marine Tank Vessel Loading X Z (Reserved) AA Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants X BB Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants X CC Petroleum Refineries X DD Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations X EE Magnetic Tape Manufacturing X FF (Reserved) GG Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities X HH Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities X II Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities X JJ Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations X KK Printing and Publishing Industry X LL Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants X MM Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfide, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills X NN Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Sources X OO Tanks-Level 1 X PP Containers X QQ Surface Impoundments X RR Individual Drain Systems X SS Closed Vent Systems, Control Devices, Recovery Devices and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a Process TT Equipment Leaks—Control Level 1 X UU Equipment Leaks—Control Level 2 Standards X VV Oil—Water Separators and Organic—Water Separators X WW Storage Vessels (Tanks)—Control Level 2 X XX Ethylene Manufacturing Process Units Heat Exchange Systems and Waste Operations X YY Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards X ZZ-BBB (Reserved) CCC Steel Pickling—HCI Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration X DDD Mineral Wool Production X EEE Hazardous Waste Combustors X FFF (Reserved) GGG Pharmaceuticals Production X HHH Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities X III Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production X JJJ Group IV Polymers and Resins X KKK (Reserved) LLL Portland Cement Manufacturing X MMM Pesticide Active Ingredient Production X NNN Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing X OOO Amino/Phenolic Resins X PPP Polyether Polyols Production X QQQ Primary Copper Smelting X RRR Secondary Aluminum Production X SSS (Reserved) TTT Primary Lead Smelting X UUU Petroleum Refineries—Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units and Sulfur Recovery Plants X VVV Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) X WWW (Reserved) XXX Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese X AAAA Municipal Solid Waste Landfills X CCCC Nutritional Yeast Manufacturing X DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products X 4 EEEE Organic Liquids Distribution X FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Processes (MON) X GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production X HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production X IIII Auto & Light Duty Truck (Surface Coating) X JJJJ Paper and other Web (Surface Coating) X KKKK Metal Can (Surface Coating) X MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products (Surface Coating) X NNNN Surface Coating of Large Appliances X OOOO Fabric Printing Coating and Dyeing X PPPP Plastic Parts (Surface Coating) X QQQQ Surface Coating of Wood Building Products X RRRR Surface Coating of Metal Furniture X SSSS Surface Coating for Metal Coil X TTTT Leather Finishing Operations X UUUU Cellulose Production Manufacture X VVVV Boat Manufacturing X WWWW Reinforced Plastic Composites Production X XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing X YYYY Combustion Turbines X ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) X AAAAA Lime Manufacturing Plants X BBBBB Semiconductor Manufacturing X CCCCC Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching and Battery Stacks X DDDDD Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters Major Sources X 5 EEEEE Iron Foundries X FFFFF Integrated Iron and Steel X GGGGG Site Remediation X HHHHH Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing X IIIII Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants X JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing X 6 KKKKK Clay Ceramics Manufacturing X 6 LLLLL Asphalt Roofing and Processing X MMMMM Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operation X NNNNN Hydrochloric Acid Production, Fumed Silica Production X OOOOO (Reserved) PPPPP Engine Test Facilities X QQQQQ Friction Products Manufacturing X RRRRR Taconite Iron Ore Processing X SSSSS Refractory Products Manufacture X TTTTT Primary Magnesium Refining X UUUUU Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units X 7 VVVVV (Reserved) WWWWW Hospital Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers Area Sources X XXXXX (Reserved) YYYYY Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities Area Sources X ZZZZZ Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources X AAAAAA (Reserved) BBBBBB Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities
  • Area Sources
  • X
    CCCCCC Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Area Sources X DDDDDD Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production Area Sources X EEEEEE Primary Copper Smelting Area Sources X FFFFFF Secondary Copper Smelting Area Sources X GGGGGG Primary Nonferrous Metals Area Sources: Zinc, Cadmium, and Beryllium X HHHHHH Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources X IIIIII (Reserved) JJJJJJ Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers Area Sources X KKKKKK (Reserved) LLLLLL Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area Sources X MMMMMM Carbon Black Production Area Sources X NNNNNN Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds X OOOOOO Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area Sources X PPPPPP Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources X QQQQQQ Wood Preserving Area Sources X RRRRRR Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Area Sources X SSSSSS Glass Manufacturing Area Sources X TTTTTT Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing Area Sources X UUUUUU (Reserved) VVVVVV Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources X WWWWWW Plating and Polishing Operations Area Sources X XXXXXX Metal Fabrication and Finishing Area Sources X YYYYYY Ferroalloys Production Facilities Area Sources X ZZZZZZ Aluminum, Copper, and Other Nonferrous Foundries Area Sources X AAAAAAA Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Area Sources X BBBBBBB Chemical Preparations Industry Area Sources X CCCCCCC Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Area Sources X DDDDDDD Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Area Sources X EEEEEEE Gold Mine Ore Processing and Production Area Sources FFFFFFF—GGGGGGG (Reserved) HHHHHHH Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production Major Sources X 1 Program delegated to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2 Authorities which may not be delegated include: § 63.6(g), Approval of Alternative Non-Opacity Emission Standards; § 63.6(h)(9), Approval of Alternative Opacity Standards; § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Test Methods; § 63.8(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Monitoring; § 63.10(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Recordkeeping and Reporting; and all authorities identified in the subparts (e.g., under “Delegation of Authority”) that cannot be delegated. 3 TCEQ was previously delegated this subpart on May 17, 2005 (70 FR 13018). The subpart was vacated and remanded to the EPA by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. See, Mossville Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 370 F. 3d 1232 (DC Cir. 2004). Because of the DC Court's holding, this subpart is not delegated to TCEQ at this time. 4 This subpart was issued a partial vacatur by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. See 72 FR 61060 (October 29, 2007). 5 Final rule. See 76 FR 15608 (March 21, 2011), as amended at 78 FR 7138 (January 31, 2013); 80 FR 72807 (November 20, 2015). 6 Final promulgated rule adopted by the EPA. See 80 FR 65470 (October 26, 2015). Note that Part 63 Subpart KKKKK was amended to correct minor typographical errors. See 80 FR 75817 (December 4, 2015). 7 Final Rule. See 77 FR 9304 (February 16, 2012), as amended 81 FR 20172 (April 6, 2016). Final Supplemental Finding that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate HAP emissions from Coal- and Oil-fired EUSGU Units. See 81 FR 24420 (April 25, 2016).
    [FR Doc. 2018-00447 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 10 [PS Docket No. 15-91; PS Docket No. 15- 94, FCC 16-127] Wireless Emergency Alerts; Emergency Alert System AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a three-year period, the information collection associated with the Commission's Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) Report and Order, FCC 16-127 (WEA Report and Order). In the WEA Report and Order, the Commission stated that it would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of the rule.

    DATES:

    47 CFR 10.320(g) published at 81 FR 75710, November 1, 2016, is effective January 12, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maureen McCarthy, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at (202) 418-0011 or [email protected] For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A summary of the WEA Report and Order was published in the Federal Register on November 1, 2016, 81 FR 75710. The WEA Report and Order promotes the utility of WEA as a life-saving tool. The summary stated that it would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of the rules requiring OMB approval. The information collection requirements in §  10.320(g) were approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 3060-1126. With publication of the instant document in the Federal Register, the rule changes to 47 CFR 10.320(g) adopted in the WEA Report and Order are now effective.

    If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1126, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected]

    To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on March 13, 2017, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to 47 CFR 10.320(g).

    Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

    No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1126.

    The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1126.

    OMB Approval Date: March 13, 2017.

    OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2020.

    Title: Testing and Logging Requirements for Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA).

    Form Number: N/A.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, and state, local, or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 80 respondents; 451,600 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.0000694 hours (2.5 seconds)-2 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Monthly and on occasion reporting requirements and recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Statutory authority for these collection is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 624(g), 706, and 715 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(o), 301, 301(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606, and 615, as well as by sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of the WARN Act, 47 U.S.C. 1202(a), (b), (c), (f), 1203, 1204 and 1206, unless otherwise noted.

    Total Annual Burden: 125,390 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by the federal Freedom of Information Act upon request, but only insofar as those logs pertain to Alert Messages initiated by that emergency management agency.

    Privacy Act: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: Section 10.320 describes the provider alert gateway requirements, specifically with respect to logging. The CMS provider must log the CMAC attributes of all Alert Messages received at the CMS Provider Alert Gateway, including time stamps that verify when the message is received, and when it is retransmitted or rejected by the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway. If an Alert Message is rejected, a Participating CMS Provider is required to log the specific error code generated by the rejection. The CMS provider must also maintain a log of all active and cancelled Alert Messages for at least 12 months after receipt of such alert or cancellation and make their alert logs available to the Commission and FEMA upon request. Participating CMS Providers are also required to make alert logs available to emergency management agencies that offer confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by the federal Freedom of Information Act upon request, but only insofar as those logs pertain to Alert Messages initiated by that emergency management agency.

    This information will inform emergency managers whether their alerts are delivered, and if not, why not. We anticipate that the alert log maintenance requirements will serve to ensure that alert logs are available when needed, both to the Commission and to emergency management agencies. These logs have potential to increase their confidence that WEA will work as intended when needed. Alert logs are also necessary to establish a baseline for system integrity against which future iterations of WEA can be evaluated. Without records that can be used to describe the quality of system integrity, and the most common causes of message transmission failure, it will be difficult to evaluate how any changes to WEA could affect system integrity.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00463 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 17-151] Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, Commission issues new rules that protect consumers from unwanted robocalls by permitting voice service providers to proactively block telephone calls when the subscriber of a phone number requests that calls purporting to originate from that number be blocked, and when calls purport to originate from three categories of unassigned phone numbers: Invalid numbers, valid numbers that are not allocated to a voice service provider, and valid numbers that are allocated but not assigned to a subscriber. While such calls may appear to be legitimate to those who receive them, they can result in fraud or identity theft. To combat these scams, the new rules expressly authorize voice service providers to block these robocalls without running afoul of the FCC's call completion rules. To minimize blocking of lawful calls, the Commission encourages voice service providers that elect to block calls to establish a simple way to identify and fix blocking errors. The rules also prohibit providers from blocking 911 emergency calls.

    DATES:

    Effective February 12, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen A Schroeder, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), at (202) 418-0654, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, in CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 17-151, adopted on November 16, 2017 and released on November 17, 2017. The full text of this document will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document and any subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be found by searching ECFS at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert CG Docket No. 17-59 into the Proceeding block). The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that was adopted concurrently with the Report and Order is published elsewhere in the Federal Register.

    Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    The Report and Order does not contain any new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    Congressional Review Act

    The Commission sent a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    Synopsis

    1. In the Report and Order, the Commission takes another important step in combatting illegal robocalls by enabling voice service providers to block certain calls before they reach consumers' phones. Specifically, the Commission adopts rules allowing providers to block calls from phone numbers on a Do-Not-Originate (DNO) list and those that purport to be from invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers. Providers have been active in identifying these calls and there is broad support for these rules. At the same time, the Commission establishes safeguards to mitigate the possibility of blocking desired calls.

    2. Caller ID spoofing is often the key to making robocall scams work. Generally, Caller ID services permit the recipient of an incoming call to know the telephone number of the calling party, and in some cases a name associated with the number, before the recipient answers the call. But Caller ID information can be altered or manipulated, i.e., spoofed, so that the name or number displayed to the called party does not match that of the actual subscriber or the actual originating number. Though callers can use spoofing to mislead or even defraud the called party, there are legitimate uses for spoofing.

    3. Congress passed the 2009 Truth in Caller ID Act to “address the growing problem of Caller ID spoofing done for fraudulent or harmful purposes.” Congress limited the spoofing prohibition to the knowing transmission of misleading or inaccurate Caller ID information “with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value,” except where such transmission is determined to be exempt by the Commission.

    4. Despite these protections, consumers still receive an unacceptably high volume of illegal robocalls. To combat the robocall problem in a coordinated way, industry established the Robocall Strike Force (Strike Force) in 2016. The Strike Force includes representatives from providers of traditional landline, mobile, and Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) services, handset manufacturers, operating system developers, and VoIP gateway providers. The Strike Force has said that “robocalls are best addressed in a holistic manner through deployment of a wide variety of tools by a broad range of stakeholders” that includes industry blocking of calls. On October 26, 2016, it published the Robocall Strike Force Report (Strike Force Report). The Strike Force specifically asked the Commission to provide guidance on when providers may block a call that the provider believes is illegal.

    5. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) addressed one of the Strike Force's requests in 2016 by clarifying that voice service providers may block calls using a spoofed Caller ID number if the number's subscriber requests that they do so. Following that initial guidance, the Strike Force Report sought additional clarification regarding the legality of certain provider-initiated call blocking. Specifically, it sought clarification that: (1) Providers may block calls where the Caller ID shows an unassigned number; and (2) providers may block calls that the provider has determined to be illegal robocalls, so long as the provider takes reasonable steps to confirm that the calls are illegal.

    6. In the March 2017 Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI, document FCC 17-24, published at 82 FR 22625, May 17, 2017, the Commission sought comment on whether to take certain steps to facilitate voice service providers' blocking of illegal robocalls. In the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI, the Commission proposed rules to allow voice service providers to block telephone calls when the subscriber of a phone number requests that calls purporting to originate from that number be blocked, and when calls purport to originate from three categories of phone numbers: Invalid numbers, valid numbers that are not allocated to a voice service provider, and valid numbers that are allocated but not assigned to a subscriber.

    7. Call Completion Considerations. The Commission has generally found call blocking by voice service providers to be unlawful. The Commission also made clear that it is unlawful for providers to block VoIP-Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) traffic, and for interconnected and one-way VoIP providers to block voice traffic to or from the PSTN. The Commission has allowed call blocking only in “rare and limited circumstances.”

    Discussion

    8. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopts rules to give voice service providers the option of blocking illegal robocalls in certain, well-defined circumstances. By doing so, the Commission furthers its goal of removing regulatory roadblocks and gives industry the flexibility to block illegal calls. At the same time, the Commission affirms its commitment to protect the reliability of the nation's communications network and ensure that provider-initiated blocking helps, rather than harms, consumers. These rules outline specific, well-defined circumstances in which voice service providers may block calls that are highly likely to be illegitimate because there is no lawful reason to spoof certain kinds of numbers. Thus, a provider who blocks calls in accordance with these rules will not violate the call completion rules. Conversely, a provider that blocks calls that do not fall within the scope of these rules may be liable for violating the Commission's call completion rules.

    Blocking at the Request of the Subscriber to the Originating Number

    9. First, the Commission codifies the Bureau's earlier clarification that providers may block calls when they receive a request from the subscriber to which the originating number is assigned, i.e., a DNO request. The 2016 Guidance Public Notice, document DA 16-1121, made clear that voice service providers—whether providing such service through TDM, VoIP, or CMRS—may block calls purporting to be from a telephone number if the subscriber to that number requests such blocking in order to prevent its number from being spoofed. The Bureau concluded that where the subscriber did not consent to the number being used, the call was very likely made to annoy and defraud, and therefore, no reasonable consumer would wish to receive such a call. The Commission agrees and finds such DNO calls highly likely to be illegal and to violate the Commission's anti-spoofing rule, with the potential to cause harm, defraud, or wrongfully obtain something of value.

    10. The record shows broad support among consumer groups, providers, government, and callers for blocking DNO calls. Consumers Union et. al. emphasizes the urgent need for providers to take action against spoofed calls, stating, “DNO is one of several promising tools that they should implement to help address the problem.” Several commenters note the positive results of DNO trials conducted by members of the Strike Force.

    11. ZipDX and others claim that gains from blocking DNO numbers will be temporary, because those making illegal robocalls will simply choose other numbers to spoof when their calls are blocked. The Commission disagrees that this possibility negates the demonstrated benefits of such blocking. Allowing providers to block spoofed calls from high-profile numbers, such as IRS phone numbers, that are among those most likely to lure consumers into scams will substantially benefit consumers and help entities that make DNO requests control the integrity of their phone numbers. The Commission believes that codifying the Bureau's 2016 guidance in the form of a rule gives providers greater certainty that blocking calls at the request of the subscriber is lawful and provides an incentive to engage in this kind of beneficial blocking.

    12. Criteria for Blocking DNO Numbers. In its comments, USTelecom suggests five criteria used by the Industry Traceback Group (ITB) to evaluate numbers to determine whether they should be blocked, namely:

    a candidate number must: (1) Be inbound-only; (2) be currently spoofed by a robocaller in order to perpetrate impersonation-focused fraud; (3) be the source of a substantial volume of calls; (4) have authorization for participation in the DNO effort from the party to which the telephone number is assigned; and/or (5) be recognized by consumers as belonging to a legitimate entity, lending credence to the impersonators and influencing successful execution of the scam. The Commission finds that for purposes of the rule, only two of these criteria are necessary. The number must be used for inbound calls only, and the subscriber to the number must authorize it to be blocked. The Commission agrees with the ITB recommendation that both the subscriber making the request and the provider receiving the request validate that the number is used for inbound calls only. The Commission will not require the subscriber or the provider to determine whether the number is currently being spoofed, is the source of a substantial volume of calls, or is recognized by consumers. While the Commission believes the additional criteria may be helpful in some circumstances, they would impose too high a barrier for inclusion in the DNO list. In addition, the Commission does not want to impose a potentially burdensome analysis requirement on providers that might discourage them from blocking inbound-only numbers at the request of the subscriber.

    13. Coordination of Effort. The Commission agrees with Consumers Union et. al. that “[m]uch responsibility rests with the providers to ensure that DNO works as well as possible” through broad industry participation. While full industry participation is not required to achieve positive results, having more providers block a number will allow fewer calls purporting to be from that number to go through. Commenters note that providers must coordinate their efforts for this type of call blocking to be used effectively. For example, Sprint comments that, while it supports this type of blocking and participated in the collaborative effort to block spoofed IRS numbers, “there are currently no automated systems in place to expand the scale of such projects industry-wide or to accommodate much larger numbers of customers requesting blocking.” USTelecom points out the inefficiency of requiring subscribers “requesting DNOs to be forced to make individual requests to multiple providers.” ZipDX suggests that the originating provider is in the best position to block these kinds of calls.

    14. Other commenters, however, suggest that providers expand their existing ways of sharing information from the test cases and other initiatives to support this effort. As Comcast comments, “[p]articipants in the Strike Force have set up an ad hoc shared list of numbers that should not be originated and can add more for review.” USTelecom comments that its “Industry Traceback Group has been facilitating a targeted, centralized, and coordinated DNO trial and stands ready to continue to evolve industry efforts on this front going forward.”

    15. The Commission strongly encourages providers to continue to work cooperatively to share information about any inbound-only numbers for which the subscriber has requested that the number be blocked. At this time, the Commission declines to prescribe a sharing mechanism, especially in light of industry's existing efforts at coordination. The Commission emphasizes that safeguards must be put in place to prevent numbers used for outbound calls from being wrongly added to the DNO list, whether from hacking, honest mistakes, or some other cause, especially for calls made to emergency services. The Commission encourages industry to continue developing its methods for implementing DNO and encourages providers that choose to do such blocking to establish a mechanism for timely removal of erroneous blocks.

    16. Resellers. Finally, the Commission agree with TracFone that wireless resellers may pass along subscriber requests to the underlying carrier that the subscriber's inbound-only number be blocked. The Commission sees no reason on this record to not allow wireless reseller subscribers to participate in the DNO effort.

    Calls Purporting To Originate From Unassigned Numbers

    17. The Commission next finds that providers may initiate blocking where the call purports to originate from a number that is unassigned. Use of an unassigned number provides a strong indication that the calling party is spoofing the Caller ID to potentially defraud and harm a voice service subscriber. Such calls are therefore highly likely to be illegal. The Commission identifies three categories of unassigned numbers that it determines can be reasonably subject to blocking: (1) Numbers that are invalid under the North American Numbering Plan (NANP); (2) numbers that have not been allocated by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) or the Pooling Administrator (PA) to any provider; and (3) numbers that the NANPA or PA has allocated to a provider, but are not currently used. Providers may block calls purporting to be from numbers that fall into any one of these three categories.

    Calls Purporting To Originate From Invalid Numbers

    18. Providers may block calls purportedly originating from numbers that are not valid NANP numbers. Examples of such numbers include those that use an unassigned area code; that use an abbreviated dialing code, such as 911 or 411, in place of an area code; that do not contain the requisite number of digits; and that are a single digit repeated, such as 000-000-0000, with the exception of 888-888-8888, which is an assignable number. With a few important exceptions detailed below, the record generally supports the assumption that, because these numbers are not valid, a subscriber could not lawfully originate calls from such numbers and these calls should be blocked. Providers, however, must take care that they do not block calls that purportedly originate from valid numbers, especially emergency calls.

    19. The record supports the proposal that no caller would spoof an invalid number for any lawful purpose; for example, unlike a business spoofing Caller ID on outgoing calls to show its main call-back number, invalid numbers cannot be called back. Thus, the Commission does not see a significant risk to network reliability in allowing providers to block this category of calls. ATIS suggests that benefits will be temporary because “widespread blocking of invalid and unallocated numbers could have an unintended negative consequence by driving bad actors to focus their efforts on spoofing assigned/valid numbers.” Consumers Union et. al., however, comment that blocking such calls is imperative, because “[c]onsumers do not expect that their phone service would be the means through which illegal and fraudulent scams enter their homes, and providers should not be obligated to deliver illegal messages that could cause consumers harm.” In addition, blocking calls purporting to be from invalid numbers “holds the greatest potential for success in the short term and likely would be the easiest to implement.”

    20. The Commission rejects suggestions that blocking calls purporting to originate from invalid numbers creates “significant possibilities of false positives.” Although ZipDX claims that “a significant number” of private branch exchanges (PBXs) “are not properly configured” to display an accurate Caller ID and that Caller ID information could theoretically be “unintentionally altered” during a call's transmission, the record belies such claims. Instead, the record demonstrates that the risk of erroneously blocking such calls is very low and should not be a barrier to allowing providers to block calls purporting to be from invalid numbers. Indeed, the Commission agrees with USTelecom that this small risk simply requires providers to exercise “caution when instituting blocking in the network.” And the Commission reiterates that caution to businesses with PBXs: The responsibility to properly configure PBX equipment lies with the owner, and those spoofing invalid numbers (whether intentionally or not) have the ability to ensure that their calls go through by properly reconfiguring that equipment.

    21. Identifying Invalid Numbers. Neustar, which currently is the NANPA and PA, comments that “information for invalid numbers [is maintained] within the [NANP], and the industry has other sources to identify invalid numbers such as ATIS's Industry Numbering Committee. . . . Thus, service providers already have access to the information they need” for this kind of blocking. Comcast similarly states that “[v]oice providers generally have `intimate knowledge of the [NANP]' and can `easily identify numbers that fall into this category,' including numbers that use an N11 code in place of an area code or that repeat a single digit.” In light of the industry's assurance that it can confidently identify invalid numbers, the Commission sees no need to further define or limit what is meant by “a number that is not a valid [NANP] number.” The Commission encourages providers to conduct tests or simulations before blocking calls purporting to originate from invalid numbers to verify their methods.

    Calls Purporting To Originate From Numbers Not Allocated to Any Provider

    22. The Commission finds that providers may block calls purportedly originating from numbers that are valid but have not yet been allocated by the NANPA or the PA to any provider. Though these numbers are valid under the NANP, the Commission finds that calls purporting to use unallocated numbers are similar to calls purporting to use invalid numbers in that no subscriber can actually originate a call from any of these numbers, and the Commission sees no lawful reason to spoof such numbers because they cannot be called back. Calls purporting to originate from such numbers therefore are highly likely to be illegal.

    23. Here, the provider must have knowledge that a certain block of numbers has not been allocated to any provider and therefore that the number being blocked could not have been assigned to a subscriber. The record generally supports allowing permissive blocking of calls purporting to be from unallocated numbers. For example, ATIS points out that “no subscriber can actually originate a call from these unallocated central office codes and it is unlikely that there is any legitimate, lawful reason to.”

    24. Parties opposing this type of call blocking generally do so based on implementation difficulties and the risk of blocking legal calls. For example, NCTA warns that the proposal “could unintentionally result in harm to consumers and should not be adopted at this time,” and ZipDX cautions that “[t]he unintended consequences of these blocks (false positives) are potentially quite troublesome and far outweigh any good that would result from successful robocall blocks.” Several commenters also note that, if providers block unallocated numbers, then “illegal robocallers could simply shift to spoofing assigned numbers.”

    25. Commenters do not agree on the potential volume of calls that might be blocked under this rule. While ZipDX says the “fraction of complaints” from unassigned numbers is “miniscule,” USTelecom states that “the scale of numbers at issue in the Commission's latter two proposals [blocking calls from unallocated and unassigned numbers] are potentially enormous—encompassing 3 billion telephone numbers.” Transaction Network Services (TNS) attempts to strike a middle ground, suggesting that “[w]hile there is a large number of unallocated telephone numbers (over 33 million) that have been flagged as making calls, the volume of call activity from these numbers relative to all negative robocalling is very small.” TNS concludes that blocking “this subset of numbers has significant, but limited value.” In contrast, a recent Commission enforcement action found that one robocaller made a staggering 21,582,771 spoofed robocalls in a three-month period; the caller ID for each of the robocalls examined by the FCC falsely identified a phone number that was not assigned to any carrier or subscriber at the time the calls were made. Although the number of complaints about calls from unassigned numbers may be small, the Commission agrees with USTelecom that the potential value of blocking such calls is enormous. Consumers will benefit from this type of blocking because the calls are highly likely to annoy or defraud.

    26. Defining Unallocated Numbers Subject to Blocking. Some commenters emphasize that a permissive rule does not require providers to identify and block every unallocated number, but rather simply allows a provider to block calls purporting to be from those numbers it can verify are unallocated. The Commission agrees. Providers may block calls purporting to be from unallocated numbers and should limit themselves to blocking only those numbers that they can verify are unallocated. Providers may not be able to identify the complete set of all unallocated numbers for purposes of call blocking. Accordingly, voice service providers might be unable to block calls purporting to originate from every unallocated number, but this shortcoming would not result in the blocking of legal calls.

    27. Obtaining Unallocated Number Information. The Commission does not prescribe a technical solution for identifying and communicating information about unallocated numbers at this time. The record shows consensus that, while information on unallocated numbers is available to providers, no currently available source identifies all unallocated numbers in real time and that “the NANPA does not administer codes outside the United States, specifically in Canada and Caribbean countries, or toll-free numbers.” Many commenters suggest that providers should use a new, centralized database as a resource for identification of unallocated numbers.

    28. Neustar lists categories of unallocated numbers that should not initiate calls, including “telephone numbers in: (1) Unallocated area codes in the NANP; (2) unallocated geographic Central Office (“CO”) codes (NPA-NXX) in the United States; and (3) unallocated non-contaminated thousands-blocks (NPA-NXX-X) in the United States.” ATIS elaborates on the issue of contaminated thousands-blocks, stating that available thousands-blocks “publicly posted on the PA website . . . could contain up to 100 assigned numbers within those blocks.” Therefore, providers blocking calls from contaminated blocks could erroneously block calls purporting to originate from assigned numbers. Providers that block calls purporting to originate from assigned numbers may be liable for violating the call completion rules.

    29. Several commenters propose enhancements to the information provided by the NANPA and the PA. Neustar suggests that the NANPA and the PA “provide on their websites: (1) `Blacklists' of unallocated numbers that should not be making calls; and (2) `Whitelists' of allocated area codes in the NANP, allocated geographic CO codes in the United States, and allocated thousands-blocks in the United States.” Comcast takes a similar approach, suggesting that the databases “(1) more clearly identify which numbers have not yet been allocated and (2) are updated immediately to reflect any new allocations as they occur.”

    30. The Commission believes that providers, the NANPA, and the PA are in the best position to determine how to share information about unallocated numbers. The Commission encourages these parties to work together on whether and how to improve the availability of this information for blocking purposes. At the same time, the Commission cautions against blocking calls purporting to originate from allocated numbers and encourages providers to examine their practices carefully to verify that they are not inadvertently doing so. A provider that erroneously blocks calls purporting to originate from allocated numbers may be liable for violating the call completion rules.

    Calls Purporting To Originate From Numbers That Are Allocated but Unused

    31. The Commission finds that providers may block calls purportedly originating from numbers that are allocated to a provider by the NANPA or PA, but are unused, so long as the provider blocking the calls is the allocatee of the number or has obtained verification from the allocatee that the number is unused at the time of the blocking. For these purposes, an “unused” number is a number that is not assigned to a subscriber or otherwise set aside for outbound call use. As with invalid numbers and unallocated numbers, calls cannot originate from such a number, and the Commission foresees no lawful purpose for intentionally spoofing a number that is unused and thus cannot be called back.

    32. The record shows mixed support for allowing providers to block these kinds of calls. For example, EPIC points out that “because they are not assigned anyone using them without the provider's knowledge is almost certainly engaging in unlawful activity.” Many commenters, however, express concerns about legal calls being blocked, similar to the concerns about unallocated number call blocking, because “the status of numbers is always changing.” The record also shows “potentially thorny implementation issues” for blocking calls from unused numbers, similar to but greater in scale than those identified for unallocated numbers. In addition, the argument concerning the likely reaction of robocallers to the blocking of unallocated numbers detailed above applies here as well.

    33. Obtaining Unused Number Information. The record clearly shows “an industry-wide recognition that there is currently no technical solution that allows providers to accurately and promptly identify numbers that have been allocated to a carrier but not yet assigned to a subscriber.” Commenters assert that without such a database, providers cannot be certain of the status of numbers not assigned to them. The Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) and other existing databases do not show the details of provider assignment of numbers and are not capable of identifying reassigned numbers. Microsoft claims that such blocking, “if not supported by use of a 100 percent reliable real-time database (which does not exist), could prevent outgoing domestic call completion for consumers who are assigned newly-activated telephone numbers.”

    34. The record reveals that creating such a database would be difficult. Neustar comments that providers “often consider such information to be competitively sensitive.” In addition, the information changes very quickly, “as providers are constantly assigning new numbers to subscribers or are de-assigning numbers when a subscriber leaves and decides not to take advantage of number portability.” While the FTC encourages providers to share this information, providers oppose mandatory information sharing. CTIA cautions that creating a centralized database “is technically challenging and would divert resources away from innovative solutions.”

    35. The Commission concludes, however, that a narrowly tailored rule could be implemented without a database. Noble Systems makes a distinction between allowing providers to block calls purported to originate from numbers allocated to that provider, which the provider knows to be unused, and requiring providers to share information to block all unused numbers. Regarding their own numbers, “each individual service provider certainly knows which telephone numbers it has been allocated but not yet assigned to subscribers.” As such, the rule permits providers to block on this basis. Should the industry develop more comprehensive information sources that would facilitate broader blocking of calls purported to originate from unused numbers, the rule would also permit that kind of blocking.

    36. Scope of Rule. The record shows significant obstacles to implementing a rule requiring all providers to pool their information, yet where the allocatee of the number in question is the only provider able to block calls purporting to originate from that number, “the value of the initiative would be significantly diminished and would create a disadvantage for smaller providers.” With fewer providers blocking each number, fewer illegal calls will be blocked overall.

    37. The Commission will not require providers to share competitively sensitive information on an industry-wide basis, nor will it limit providers to blocking only unused numbers they have been allocated. The Commission therefore defines the scope of this rule to allow providers to block calls purporting to originate from an unused number, so long as the provider blocking the call either (1) is the allocatee of the number and has confirmed the number is unused, or (2) has verified the unused status of the number with the allocatee at the time of the blocking. This gives providers the flexibility to share information if they wish to, and the Commission encourages providers to do so.

    38. In addition, this is a permissive rule. CTIA points out that such “[a] voluntary regime will allow carriers that develop the ability to identify these numbers to block calls originating from them without forcing carriers to develop capabilities they do not currently possess.”

    39. Types of Used Numbers. Many commenters indicate that legal calls may be made from what appear to be unassigned numbers. For example, INCOMPAS points out that “many legitimate callers do not originate calls on the [PSTN] and, therefore, do not have telephone numbers.” Commenters identify three specific kinds of unassigned numbers that should not be blocked because they are being used to make legal outbound calls: Intermediate numbers, administrative numbers, and proxy numbers. The Commission acknowledges this concern and the rule is clear that providers should not block any type of number that, although it is not assigned to a subscriber, is used for these lawful purposes. The Commission encourages providers to examine the status of their numbers before blocking calls that purport to originate from unused numbers to verify that they are not inadvertently blocking calls that fall outside the scope of this rule, which would risk liability for violating the call completion rules.

    Other Issues

    40. Emergency Calls. The Commission makes clear that the rules do not authorize the blocking of calls to 911 under any circumstance. The Commission notes that the NANP itself contemplates certain non-standard numbers to facilitate emergency calling; the NANP, for example, “permits the use of `911' as the [Numbering Plan Area code] for emergency calls from non-initialized mobile devices.” To make it abundantly clear, nonetheless, that voice providers should not block such calls, the Commission makes clear these rules do not permit the blocking of emergency calls except as otherwise expressly permitted by the Commission's rules.

    41. International Calls. In the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI, the Commission sought comment “on whether an internationally originated call purportedly originated from a NANP number should be subject to these rules, whereas an internationally originated call showing an international number would be beyond the scope of this rule.” The Commission adopts this proposal. The Commission agrees with Neustar that it should apply to international calls purporting to use NANP numbers “the same blocking rules applicable to domestic originated calls.” Many illegal robocalls originate from overseas call centers, and excluding such calls that purport to use NANP numbers from the ambit of the rule would create an exception that threatens to swallow the rule. In contrast, international calls from purported non-NANP numbers would not, by definition, follow the NANP numbering scheme and thus are beyond the scope of this proceeding.

    42. The Commission agrees with commenters that internationally originated calls may have lawful reasons to use a NANP number. VON, for example, suggests “a US-based user of a service may be traveling in Europe but uses their service to make Wi-Fi-based calls (and have their US caller ID shown).” And the Commission agrees with Microsoft that it must “avoid inadvertently authorizing international call blocking.” But the Commission disagrees with ZipDX's apparent suggestion that some possibility of international call blocking means the Commission must abandon its efforts. Because the Commission authorizes blocking only for purported NANP numbers, it sees no reason why the actual origination point of the call would bear on whether it is blocked. In other words, the Commission finds the likelihood of blocking a legitimate call is minimal—no matter its origin. And the Commission reiterates that the rules do not authorize the blocking of any international call purporting to use a valid NANP number assigned to that user.

    43. Subscriber Consent. The Commission does not require consumer opt-in for providers to block the specific types of calls addressed herein. The Commission believes that no reasonable consumer would want to receive the calls the Commission has determined may be subject to blocking. For call blocking to be most effective, it must be applied throughout the calling network. An opt-in requirement would thwart providers' efforts.

    44. The record shows support for allowing providers to block these specific types of spoofed calls without requiring consent from the subscriber. Some commenters emphasize the limited scope of calls that do not require consent. ITTA agrees with the Commission's reasoning that “obtaining opt-in consent from subscribers would add unnecessary burdens and complexity, . . . may not be technically feasible for some providers” and “would also add unnecessary delays.” EPIC comments that “proactive blocking” would benefit consumers, “especially those that rely on landlines, [who] may not have or use caller ID.”

    45. Consumers Union et. al. propose that providers should obtain consent from all consumers before blocking calls other than those purporting to originate from DNO numbers, but, as stated above, the Commission does not believe any reasonable consumer would want to receive these calls. The administrative burden of tracking individual opt-in responses would likely be a disincentive to blocking.

    46. While providers are not required to obtain subscriber consent before blocking these calls, the Commission emphasizes that the types of calls that can be blocked are very limited. The Commission agrees with the recommendation from the Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC) and encourages providers to inform their customers about the features and risks of their own call blocking programs.

    47. Call Completion Rates. The Strike Force requested that the Commission amend its call completion rules to ensure that providers can block illegal calls without those blocked calls being held against them in calculating call completion rates. The Commission agrees that providers do not need to count these blocked calls for purposes of calculating their call completion rates on FCC Form 480 and therefore the Commission interprets the rules and the form to not require inclusion of calls blocked in accordance with the rules adopted here. Reporting carriers may exclude these calls to the extent that they are able to identify them.

    48. The record shows significant support for excluding these calls from the call completion calculations to “incentivize carriers to participate in voluntary blocking when appropriate and consistent with the rules.” CenturyLink comments that “[w]ithout this protection, carriers may be unwilling to use any of the tools that may be adopted in the proceeding and the consumer benefits the Commission hopes to achieve may not be realized.” Consumers Union et. al. agrees that “the calls that are blocked according to these guidelines should be exempt from call completion rates.”

    49. Notwithstanding this support for the concept of excluding blocked calls from call completion rate calculations, it might not currently be possible for all providers to identify blocked calls. Originating providers required to file call completion reports have no standard mechanism to identify calls that are blocked intentionally under these rules by downstream providers and distinguish them from calls that are not completed for other reasons. Further, NTCA suggests that excluding such calls from call completion would be premature “until the definitions and practical considerations noted above are addressed and standardized by industry and the Commission.”

    50. Given the inability of all providers who must file call completion reports to identify blocked calls in every instance and the Commission's revisiting of the rural call completion requirements in a separate rulemaking proceeding, the Commission does not believe that requiring exclusion of these calls is appropriate at this time. The Commission instead simply notes that providers subject to the call-completion reporting rules may, but are not required to, exclude blocked calls from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements to the extent they can identify such calls.

    51. CPNI Rules. In the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI, the Commission sought comment on whether there are concerns about sharing DNO request information and whether any clarifications or rule changes could be helpful. Some commenters asked the Commission to clarify the applicability of section 222 of the Act, and the implementing rules, in order to allow sharing of robocall information for traceback purposes or sharing of a subscriber's request to block an inbound-only number.

    52. USTelecom notes that “the sharing of CPNI by telecommunications providers is essential to ensuring accurate and thorough call traceback efforts in multiple providers' networks related to suspicious calling events.” The Commission notes that traceback efforts are aimed at identifying persons who make illegal robocalls, including calls that involve fraud in violation of the Truth in Caller ID Act. The FTC comments that “information sharing by providers at the subscriber's request appears to be consistent” with the CPNI rules. The Commission agrees. Section 222 of the Act and the implementing rules explicitly allow telecommunications carriers to use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI obtained from its customers, either directly or indirectly through its agents, “to protect the rights or property of the carrier, or to protect users of those services and other carriers from fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of, or subscription to, such services.” Furthermore, the Commission agrees with the FTC that when a subscriber requests that the carrier block calls purporting to be from the subscriber's inbound-only number, “the subscriber is almost certainly seeking to have the number blocked by as many providers as possible.” Therefore, such a request should be understood as authorizing the carrier to share that request with other carriers as permitted by section 222(c)(1) of the Act. Thus, voice service providers are free to share DNO requests as necessary to block calls in the limited circumstances identified in the Report and Order.

    53. Removing Blocks on Valid Numbers. A challenge mechanism may be needed for voice service providers that block calls given the small possibility of blocking legitimate calls. AARP suggested “[i]t would seem to be prudent to have the needed procedures to allow consumers to quickly counteract inadvertent blocking in place prior to the commencement of the general robocall blocking program.” The Commission's Consumer Advisory Committee similarly states that providers and consumers should “work collaboratively to develop processes and solutions whereby unintended blocking of legitimate callers can be remedied in a timely and efficient manner.” The Commission encourages providers that block calls to establish a means for a caller whose number is blocked to contact the provider and remedy the problem. Specifically, the Commission encourages providers that block calls in accordance with these rules to provide a way for subscribers to challenge a blocked number using a simple method that is easy for the average subscriber to understand. The Commission also encourages providers to quickly resolve the matter so subscribers making legitimate calls may resume doing so speedily.

    54. As a reminder, the call completion rules require voice service providers to complete calls and they should therefore not block legitimate calls. The Commission also reminds callers that the Commission's complaint process is available when calls that fall outside the scope of these rules are improperly blocked.

    55. Definition of “Illegal Robocall.” Although the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI sought comment on the definition of “illegal robocall” for the purposes of this proceeding, the Commission declines to adopt a definition here given that none of the rules adopted here rely on such a definition. Indeed, the record shows confusion regarding how the proposed definition of “illegal robocall” should apply to the call blocking rules. Sprint comments that providers cannot determine whether a call meets the definition of an illegal robocall before blocking it, because “[u]nlike spam prevention in email, the content of a call cannot be determined before the call rings through to the customer's phone.” First Orion states “the Commission clearly intends to give carriers the flexibility to prevent all illegal calls, regardless of the technology used.” Similarly, the FTC suggests that the Commission use the term “illegal call” rather than “illegal robocall,” because “the problematic calls here are not limited to just robocalls, but also abusive, fraudulent, or unlawful calls that are `live.' ” Because the Commission makes clear that providers need not listen to the content of calls or otherwise to determine whether a particular call is expressly illegal before blocking it, the Commission sees no reason to define the term at the present moment.

    Report on Robocalling

    56. To shed additional light on the issue of robocalling and inform the Commission's actions going forward, the Commission directs the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection, to prepare a report on the state of robocalling in the United States and to submit it to the Commission within one year from publication of the Report and Order in the Federal Register. This report should encompass both the progress made by industry, government, and consumers in combatting illegal robocalls, as well as the remaining challenges to continuing these important efforts. A focus on quantitative data, including, but not limited to, calling trends and consumer complaints, will provide particular insight into the current state of the robocalling problem and how to target additional measures to help consumers avoid the fraud and annoyance that they experience.

    Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    57. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI, including comment on the IRFA. The comments received are discussed below. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

    Need for, and Objectives of, the Order

    58. The Report and Order takes another important step in combatting illegal robocalls by enabling voice service providers to block certain calls before they reach consumers' phones. In the year since August 1, 2016, the Commission has received nearly 185,000 complaints about calls that consumers did not want. Stopping illegal robocalls and the problems they cause has united industry, government, and consumer groups. Caller ID spoofing is often the key to making robocall scams work. Therefore, the rules outline specific, well-defined circumstances in which voice service providers may block calls that are highly likely to be illegitimate because there is no lawful reason to spoof certain kinds of numbers. Specifically, the Report and Order adopts rules allowing providers to block calls from phone numbers on a DNO list and those that purport to be from invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers. By doing so, the Commission furthers its goal of removing regulatory roadblocks and gives industry the flexibility to block illegal calls. At the same time, the Commission affirms its commitment to protect the reliability of the nation's communications network and ensure that provider-initiated blocking helps, rather than harms, consumers. A provider that blocks calls that do not fall within the scope of these rules may be liable for violating the Commission's call completion rules.

    59. Blocking at the Request of the Subscriber to the Originating Number. In the Report and Order, the Commission codifies the Bureau's earlier clarification that voice service providers may block calls purporting to be from a telephone number if the subscriber to that number requests such blocking in order to prevent its number from being spoofed. Where the subscriber did not consent to the number being used, the call was very likely made with the intent to defraud, and therefore no reasonable consumer would wish to receive such a call.

    60. Calls Supposedly Originating From Invalid Numbers. Similarly, the Report and Order allows providers to block calls purportedly originating from numbers that are not valid under the NANP. Examples of such numbers include those that use an unassigned area code; that use an abbreviated dialing code, such as 411, in place of an area code; that do not contain the requisite number of digits; and that are a single digit repeated, such as 000-000-0000, with the exception of 888-888-8888, which is an assignable number. No caller would spoof an invalid number for any lawful purpose; for example, unlike a business spoofing Caller ID on outgoing calls to show its main call-back number, invalid numbers cannot be called back. Providers, however, must take care that they do not block calls that purportedly originate from valid numbers, especially emergency calls.

    61. Calls Supposedly Originating From Numbers Not Allocated to Any Provider. The Report and Order also allows providers to block calls purportedly originating from numbers that are valid but have not yet been allocated by the NANPA or the PA to any provider. Though these numbers are valid under the North American Numbering Plan, the Commission finds that calls purporting to use unallocated numbers are similar to calls purporting to use invalid numbers in that no subscriber can actually originate a call from any of these numbers, and the Commission sees no lawful reason to spoof such numbers because they cannot be called back.

    62. Calls Supposedly Originating From Numbers That are Allocated but Unused. Document FCC 17-151 allows providers to block calls purportedly originating from numbers that are allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator or Pooling Administrator, but are unused, so long as the provider blocking the calls is the allocatee of the number or has obtained verification from the allocatee that the number is unused at the time of the blocking. For these purposes, an “unused” number is a number that is not assigned to a subscriber or otherwise set aside for legitimate outbound call use. As with invalid numbers and unallocated numbers, a subscriber cannot originate a call from such a number, and the Commission foresees no lawful purpose for intentionally spoofing a number that is unused and thus cannot be called back.

    63. Other Issues. The Report and Order also clarifies that these rules do not permit the blocking of emergency calls except as otherwise expressly permitted by the Commission's rules, that all calls purporting to originate from a NANP number, including international calls, are subject to these rules, and that international calls from purported non-NANP numbers would not, by definition, follow the NANP numbering scheme and thus are beyond the scope of this proceeding. It confirms that the Commission does not require consumer opt-in for providers to block these specific types of calls, clarifies that providers do not need to count these blocked calls for purposes of calculating their call completion rates, clarifies that voice service providers are free to share the CPNI necessary to block calls in the limited circumstances identified in the Report and Order, encourages providers to establish a means for a caller whose number is blocked to contact the provider and remedy the problem, and declines to adopt a definition of the term “illegal robocall” at the present moment.

    Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

    64. In the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI, the Commission solicited comments on how to minimize the economic impact of the new rules on small businesses. The Commission received one comment directly addressing the IRFA and several comments addressing small business concerns. Two of the comments requested that the call blocking rules be permissive, rather than mandatory, three pertained to the administration of a database for unassigned numbers, and two addressed other issues. In addition, the Commission received two consumer comments documenting the negative impact of unwanted calls on small businesses. None of the other comments pointed out any areas where small businesses would incur a particular hardship in complying with the rules.

    65. Permissive Rules. Both CTIA and ITTA support permissive rules. CTIA suggests that “blocking of numbers . . . should be authorized, but not required.” ITTA claims that permissive rules give providers “flexibility in how aggressively they choose to block calls.” The rules the Commission adopts here are permissive and not mandatory.

    66. Database Administration. INCOMPAS, ITTA, and PACE suggest that a centralized database of unused numbers be created, and then suggest ways to minimize disproportionate costs to small businesses in using such a database. The Commission considered both the technical and cost issues inherent in the creations of a database and determined not to require one. Without a database, concerns about its administration are rendered moot.

    67. INCOMPAS requests a mechanism that will “spare smaller providers from using additional resources to prove the legitimacy of its call traffic to other providers.” In the Report and Order, the Commission allows a provider to block unused numbers only if the provider blocking the calls is the allocatee of the number or has obtained verification from the allocatee that the number is unused at the time of the blocking. Therefore, if a smaller provider does not give information to other providers, its call traffic will not be blocked.

    68. Other Issues. Commenters raise three other issues. First, INCOMPAS requests that the Commission require providers to put a mechanism in place to remove blocks on valid numbers, and that in doing so, “providers should be given discretion to adjust their policies according to their size and services.” In the Report and Order, the Commission urges, but does not require providers to implement such a mechanism, nor does the Commission provide specific requirements for how providers might remove blocks on valid numbers, allowing smaller providers the flexibility they request. Second, NTCA suggests that the North American Numbering Council (NANC) “may be best positioned to help clarify practical requirements” to “to assess and mitigate the costs of compliance for smaller firms.” However, industry has already established the Robocall Strike Force (Strike Force), which has produced significant documentation clarifying the practical requirements for the limited and specific types of call blocking authorized in the Report and Order. Blocking these calls presents a very low risk, and NANC participation is not required to move forward at this time. Third, TNS suggests that providers be permitted to block unused numbers allocated to other providers to avoid creating “a disadvantage for smaller providers.” The record also shows that many providers view their unused number data as competitively sensitive information. In the Report and Order, the Commission balances these concerns by allowing, but not requiring, providers to block unused numbers allocated to other providers if they have verified the unused status of the number.

    Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration

    69. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

    Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules Will Apply

    70. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small-business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

    Wireline Carriers

    71. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

    72. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of local exchange service are small businesses.

    73. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses.

    74. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, shared-tenant service providers, and other local service providers are small entities.

    75. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. The Commission has therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although it emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

    76. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange carriers are small entities.

    77. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” There are approximately 52,403,705 cable video subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, the Commission finds that all but nine incumbent cable operators are small entities under this size standard. Note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, the Commission is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.

    78. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to other toll carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of other toll carriers can be considered small.

    Wireless Carriers

    79. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category. Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities. Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Thus, using available data, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.

    80. Satellite Telecommunications Providers. The category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” This category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of satellite telecommunications firms are small entities.

    81. All Other Telecommunications. All other telecommunications comprise, inter alia, “establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Establishments providing internet services or voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of All Other Telecommunications. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has $32.5 million in annual receipts. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,400 had annual receipts below $25 million per year. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of all other telecommunications firms are small entities.

    Resellers

    82. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition for toll resellers. The closest NAICS Code Category is Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these resellers can be considered small entities. According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of this total, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small entities.

    83. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these local resellers can be considered small entities.

    84. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these prepaid calling card providers can be considered small entities.

    Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    85. The Report and Order gives voice service providers the option of blocking illegal robocalls in certain, well-defined circumstances. These changes affect small and large companies equally, and apply equally to all of the classes of regulated entities identified above.

    86. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. The Report and Order clarifies the call completion rules by allowing, but not requiring, voice service providers to exclude calls blocked under these new rules from their call completion calculations, to the extent that they are aware of which calls are blocked. To do so, voice service providers that choose to exclude such calls may modify their current reporting and recordkeeping procedures already in place for performing their call completion calculations on existing FCC Form 480. This is a minor modification to an existing process, so the Commission anticipates that the impact will be minimal.

    87. Other Compliance Requirements. Voice service providers will be permitted, but not required, to block calls purportedly originating from (1) a telephone number if the subscriber to that number requests such blocking in order to prevent its number from being spoofed; (2) numbers that purport to be NANP numbers but are not valid under the NANP; (3) numbers that are valid but have not yet been allocated by the NANPA or the PA to any provider; (4) numbers that are allocated to a provider by the NANPA or PA, but are unused, so long as the provider blocking the calls is the allocatee of the number and or has obtained verification from the allocatee that the number is unused at the time of the blocking.

    Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    88. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives, among others: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

    89. The Commission considered feedback from the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI in crafting the final order. The Commission evaluated the comments in light of balancing the goal of removing regulatory roadblocks and giving industry the flexibility to block illegal calls with its commitment to protect the reliability of the nation's communications network. Small businesses supported the proposal to make the call blocking rules permissive rather than mandatory. While the Commission considered mandatory rules, it both proposed and implemented permissive rules to address the concerns of voice service providers, including small businesses, that the cost and burden of complying with mandatory rules could be significant and might require implementation of new technology. The Commission also took small business concerns into consideration in its determination to not require a database of unused numbers. While the Commission considered mandating the use of a database for providers that choose to block unused numbers, such a database could impose disproportionate costs on small businesses and would be challenging to create and maintain. Similarly, the Commission considered the needs of small businesses in its guidance regarding removing blocks from valid numbers. While the Commission considered requiring specific processes or dedicated resources, it does not mandate them at this time to allow small providers to scale their efforts in accordance with their businesses and to develop a more robust record on the issue before the Commission addresses this in a future proceeding.

    90. The Commission does not see a need to establish a special timetable for small entities to reach compliance with the modification to the rules. No small business has asked for a delay in implementing the rules. Small businesses may avoid compliance costs entirely by declining to block robocalls, or may delay implementation of call blocking indefinitely to allow for more time to come into compliance with the rules. Similarly, there are no design standards or performance standards to consider in this rulemaking.

    Report to Congress

    91. The Commission sent a copy of the Report and Order, including the FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.

    Ordering Clauses

    92. Pursuant to sections 201, 202, 222, 251(e), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 222, 251(e), 403, the Report and Order is adopted and that part 64 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 64.1200, is amended.

    93. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    94. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Report and Order, including the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Telecommunications, Telephone.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary. Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends part 64 as follows:

    PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 1. The authority citation for part 64 is amended to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 202, 225, 251(e), 254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 251(e), 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless otherwise noted.

    2. In § 64.1200, add reserved paragraphs (i) and (j) and paragraph (k) to read as follows:
    § 64.1200 Delivery restrictions.

    (i) [Reserved]

    (j) [Reserved]

    (k) Voice service providers may block calls so that they do not reach a called party as follows:

    (1) A provider may block a voice call when the subscriber to which the originating number is assigned has requested that calls purporting to originate from that number be blocked because the number is used for inbound calls only.

    (2) A provider may block a voice call purporting to originate from any of the following:

    (i) A North American Numbering Plan number that is not valid;

    (ii) A valid North American Numbering Plan number that is not allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator or the Pooling Administrator; and

    (iii) A valid North American Numbering Plan number that is allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator or Pooling Administrator, but is unused, so long as the provider blocking the calls is the allocatee of the number and confirms that the number is unused or has obtained verification from the allocatee that the number is unused at the time of the blocking.

    (3) A provider may not block a voice call under paragraph (k)(1) or (2) of this section if the call is an emergency call placed to 911.

    (4) For purposes of this subsection, a provider may rely on Caller ID information to determine the purported originating number without regard to whether the call in fact originated from that number.

    [FR Doc. 2018-00457 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 90 [PS Docket No. 13-87; PS Docket No. 06- 229, WT Docket No. 96-86, RM-11433 and RM-11577, FCC 14-172] Service Rules Governing Narrowband Operations in the 769-775/799-805 MHz Bands AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Service Rules Governing Narrowband Operations in the 769-775/799-805 MHz Bands, FCC 14-172. This document is consistent with the Report and Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of the rules.

    DATES:

    Amendments to 47 CFR 90.531(b)(2) and (7), published at 79 FR 71321, December 2, 2014, are effective January 12, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John A. Evanoff, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at (202) 418-0848 or [email protected] For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A summary of the 700 MHz Report and Order was published in the Federal Register on December 2, 2014, 79 FR 71321. The 700 MHz Report and Order adopted technical rules for the 700 MHz narrowband. The summary stated that with the exception of certain rules requiring OMB approval, the rules adopted in the 700 MHz Report and Order would become effective January 2, 2015. With regard to rules requiring OMB approval, the Commission stated it will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of these rules. The information collection requirements in §§  90.531(b)(2) and (b)(7) were approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 3060-1198. With publication of the instant document in the Federal Register, the rule changes to 47 CFR 90.531(b)(2) and (b)(7) adopted in the 700 MHz Report and Order are now effective.

    If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1198, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected]

    To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on April 20, 2015, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to 47 CFR 90.531(b)(2) and (b)(7).

    Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

    No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1198.

    The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1198.

    OMB Approval Date: April 20, 2015.

    OMB Expiration Date: April 30, 2018.

    Title: Section 90.525, Administration of Interoperability Channels; Section 90.529, State Licenses; and Section 90.531, Band Plan.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, and state, local, or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,283 respondents; 2,283 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1—2 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting and one-time reporting requirements; third party disclosure.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections are contained in sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c) (7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7), unless otherwise noted.

    Total Annual Burden: 2,336 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Privacy Act: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: Section 90.531(b)(2) of the Commission's rules provides that narrowband reserve channels are designated for General Use subject to Commission approved regional planning committee regional plans and technical rules applicable to General Use channels. T-Band incumbents shall enjoy priority access to these channels in certain markets provided that such incumbent commits to return to the Commission an equal amount of T-Band spectrum and obtains concurrence from the relevant regional planning committee(s). Section 90.531(b)(7) of the Commission's rules reserves certain narrowband channels for air-ground communications to be used by low altitude aircraft and ground based stations subject to state administration (e.g. letter of concurrence).

    Commission staff will use the information to assign licenses for narrowband public safety channels. The information will also be used to determine whether prospective licensees operate in compliance with the Commission's rules. Without such information, the Commission could not accommodate State interoperability or regional planning requirements or provide for the efficient use of narrowband public safety frequencies. This information collection includes rules to govern the operation and licensing of 700 MHz band systems to ensure that licensees continue to fulfill their statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Such information will continue to be used to verify that applicants are legally and technically qualified to hold licenses, and to determine compliance with Commission rules.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00454 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    83 9 Friday, January 12, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1245; Product Identifier 2017-NM-099-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes and Model A319 series airplanes; all Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and all Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the holes of the upper cleat to upper stringer attachments at certain areas of the left- and right-hand wings are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require modifying the holes of the upper cleat to upper stringer attachments at certain areas of the left- and right-hand wings. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1245; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-1245; Product Identifier 2017-NM-099-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

    Discussion

    Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.

    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.

    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.

    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0117, dated July 7, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Within the scope of work of service life extension for A320 aeroplanes and of widespread fatigue damage evaluations, it has been determined that a structural modification is required to allow the aeroplanes to continue operation up to the limit of validity (LoV).

    This condition, if not corrected, may affect the structural integrity of the wing.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued SB A320-57-1208, providing instructions to oversize the holes of the upper cleat to upper stringer attachments at Rib 2 to Rib 7 (inclusive).

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of the affected holes.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1245.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1208, dated November 21, 2016. The service information describes procedures for modifying the stringer attachments at rib 2 through rib 7 of the left- and right-hand wings. The modification includes oversizing the holes, doing an eddy current inspection of the affected holes for damage, and repair. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,136 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Modification (by oversizing and doing eddy current inspection) 125 work-hours × $85 per hour = $10,625 $26,260 $36,885 $41,901,360

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

    2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2017-1245; Product Identifier 2017-NM-099-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 26, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112 -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers, except airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Model A318 series airplanes on which Airbus Modification (Mod) 39195 has been embodied in production or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-00-1219 has been embodied in service.

    (2) Model A319 series airplanes on which Airbus Mod 28238, Mod 28162, and Mod 28342 have been embodied in production.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, wings.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the holes of the upper cleat to upper stringer attachments at rib 2 through rib 7 of the left- and right-hand wings are subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in the stringer attachment holes of the wings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wings.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Modification

    Before reaching the upper limit, but not before reaching the lower limit, as defined in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable: Modify the holes of the upper cleat to upper stringer attachments at rib 2 through rib 7 inclusive, on the left- and right-hand wings by oversizing the holes, doing eddy current inspections of the holes for damage, and repairing any damage found, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1208, dated November 21, 2016, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Repair all damage before further flight.

    EP12JA18.000 (h) Service Information Exception

    Where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1208, dated November 21, 2016, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0117, dated July 7, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1245.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 26, 2017. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00342 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1144; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-30] Proposed Modification of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes in the Vicinity of Richmond, IN AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify five VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways (V-12, V-214, V-340, V-467, and V-517) and one low altitude area navigation (RNAV) route (T-213) in the vicinity of Richmond, IN. The FAA is proposing this action due to the planned decommissioning of the Richmond, IN (RID), VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid (NAVAID) which provides navigation guidance for portions of the affected ATS routes. Overall, this action would enhance the safety and management of aircraft within the National Airspace System (NAS).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before February 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1(800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-1144 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-30 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would support the route structure in the Richmond, IN, area as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-1144 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-30) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-1144 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-30.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    Background

    The FAA was originally considering decommissioning activities for the Richmond, IN (RID), VORTAC in 2023 as one of the candidate VORs identified for discontinuance by the VOR Minimum Operating Network (VOR MON) program as listed in the final policy statement notice, “Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational Network),” published in the Federal Register of July 26, 2016 (81 FR 48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082. However, recent damage to the roof of the structure that houses the VORTAC has been determined to be significant enough that repair to the roof would not be cost effective for the period of time the VORTAC was originally planned to be retained. As a result, the FAA is now planning to decommission the Richmond, IN, VORTAC in 2018 and to amend the ATS routes that use the VORTAC prior to its decommissioning. The ATS routes affected by the Richmond VORTAC are VOR Federal airways V-12, V-214, V-340, V-467, V-517, and low altitude RNAV route T-213.

    With the planned decommissioning of the Richmond, IN, VORTAC, the remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the continuity of the affected airways. As such, proposed modifications to VOR Federal airways V-12, V-214, V-340, V-467, and V-517 would result in gaps in the route structures. To overcome the gaps in the route structures, instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic could use adjacent VOR Federal airways (V-5, V-47, V-50, V-55, V-97, V-214 (retained portions), V-221, and V-275) to circumnavigate the affected area, file point to point through the affected area using fixes that will remain in place, or receive air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors through the area. Visual flight rules (VFR) pilots who elect to navigate via the airways through the affected area could also take advantage of the adjacent VOR Federal airways or ATC services previously listed.

    Additionally, due to the planned decommissioning of the Richmond, IN, VORTAC, the end point in the T-213 route description (the Richmond VORTAC) would be redefined to retain the T-route as charted.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify VOR Federal airways V-12, V-214, V-340, V-467, and V-517, and low altitude RNAV route T-213. The planned decommissioning of the Richmond, IN, VORTAC has made these actions necessary.

    The proposed VOR Federal airways and RNAV T-route changes are outlined below.

    V-12: V-12 currently extends between the Gaviota, CA, VORTAC and the Pottstown, PA, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Shelbyville, IN, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) and the Allegheny, PA, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted in the two remaining segments.

    V-214: V-214 currently extends between the Kokomo, IN, VORTAC and the Richmond, IN, VORTAC; and between the intersection of the Appleton, OH, VORTAC 236° and Zanesville, OH, VOR/DME 274° radials (GLOOM fix) and the Teterboro, NJ, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Muncie, IN, VOR/DME and the Richmond, IN, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted in the two remaining segments.

    V-340: V-340 currently extends between the intersection of the Peotone, IL, VORTAC 053° and Knox, IN, VOR/DME 297° radials (BEARZ fix) and the Richmond, IN, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC and the Richmond, IN, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted.

    V-467: V-467 currently extends between the Richmond, IN, VORTAC and the Detroit, MI, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Richmond, IN, VORTAC and the Waterville, OH, VOR/DME. The unaffected portion of the existing airway would remain as charted.

    V-517: V-517 currently extends between the Snowbird, TN, VORTAC and Dayton, OH, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Cincinnati, OH, VORTAC and the Dayton, OH, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted.

    T-213: T-213 currently extends between the Louisville, KY, VORTAC and Richmond, IN, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the VOR portion of the Richmond, IN, VORTAC from service and retain the DME equipment, with the same three-letter identifier, in service at the same location. The existing RNAV route would remain as charted.

    All radials in the route descriptions below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.

    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a), and United States Area Navigation Routes (low altitude T-routes) are published in paragraph 6011, of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways and RNAV T-route listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017 and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways. V-12 [Amended]

    From Gaviota, CA; San Marcus, CA; Palmdale, CA; 38 miles, 6 miles wide, Hector, CA; 12 miles, 38 miles, 85 MSL, 14 miles, 75 MSL, Needles, CA; 45 miles, 34 miles, 95 MSL, Drake, AZ; Winslow, AZ; 30 miles, 85 MSL, Zuni, NM; Albuquerque, NM; Otto, NM; Anton Chico, NM; Tucumcari, NM; Amarillo, TX; Mitbee, OK; Anthony, KS; Wichita, KS; Emporia, KS; INT Emporia 063° and Napoleon, MO, 243° radials; Napoleon; INT Napoleon 095° and Columbia, MO, 292° radials; Columbia; Foristell, MO; Troy, IL; Bible Grove, IL; to Shelbyville, IN. From Allegheny, PA; Johnstown, PA; Harrisburg, PA; INT Harrisburg 092° and Pottstown, PA, 278° radials; to Pottstown.

    V-214 [Amended]

    From Kokomo IN, Marion, IN; to Muncie, IN. From INT Appleton, OH, 236° and Zanesville, OH, 274° radials; Zanesville; Bellaire, OH; INT Bellaire 107° and Grantsville, MD, 285° radials; Grantsville; Martinsburg, WV; INT Martinsburg 094° and Baltimore, MD, 300° radials; Baltimore; INT Baltimore 093° and Dupont, DE, 223° radials; Dupont; Yardley, PA; to Teterboro, NJ.

    V-340 [Amended]

    From INT Peotone, IL, 053° and Knox, IN, 297° radials; Knox; to Fort Wayne, IN.

    V-467 [Amended]

    From Waterville, OH; to Detroit, MI.

    V-517 [Amended]

    From Snowbird, TN; INT Snowbird 329° and London, KY, 141° radials; London; INT London 004° and Falmouth, KY, 164° radials; Falmouth; to Cincinnati, OH.

    Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes. T-213 Louisville, KY to Richmond, IN Louisville, KY (IIU) VORTAC (Lat. 38°06′13″ N, long. 85°34′39″ W) GAMKE, IN WP (Lat. 38°46′13″ N, long. 85°14′35″ W) MILAN, IN FIX (Lat. 39°21′22″ N, long. 85°19′01″ W) Richmond, IN (RID) DME (Lat. 39°45′18″ N, long. 84°50′20″ W)
    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 3, 2018. Rodger A. Dean Jr., Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00376 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0755; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-11] Proposed Revocation and Amendment of Class E Airspace, Philipsburg, PA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to remove Class E surface airspace at Mid-State Airport, as the airport no longer qualifies for surface airspace. Also, this action proposes to remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Philipsburg Area Hospital Heliport, as the Hospital has closed. Controlled airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at Mid-State Airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before February 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to: U. S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg. Ground Floor Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2017-0755; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-11, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone 404 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend and remove Class E airspace in the Philipsburg, PA, area to support IFR operations.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0755; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-11.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to remove Class E surface airspace at Mid-State Airport as the airport no longer qualifies for the airspace. Also, the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface surrounding Philipsburg Area Hospital Heliport would be removed as the hospital has closed. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations in the area.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 6002 and 6005 respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. AEA PA E2 Philipsburg, PA [Removed] Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AEA PA E5 Philipsburg, PA [Amended] Mid-State Airport, PA (Lat. 40°53′04″ N, long. 78°05′14″ W) Philipsburg VORTAC (Lat. 40°54′59″ N, long. 77°59′34″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Mid-State Airport extending clockwise from the 261° bearing to the 012° bearing from the airport and within a 7.4-mile radius of Mid-State Airport extending clockwise from the 012° bearing to the 098° bearing from the airport and within a 6.6-mile radius of Mid-State Airport extending clockwise from the 098° bearing to the 183° bearing from the airport, and within a 8.3-mile radius of Mid-State Airport extending clockwise from the 183° bearing to the 261° bearing from the airport and within 3.1 miles each of the Philipsburg VORTAC 067° radial extending from the VORTAC to 10 miles northeast of the VORTAC, and within 3.5 miles each side of the 327° bearing from a point at lat. 40°53′09″ N, long. 78°05′06″ W, extending from said point to a point 7.4 miles northwest, and within 2.2 miles each side of the Philipsburg VORTAC 330° radial extending from the VORTAC to 5.3 miles northwest of the VORTAC and within 3.1 miles each side of the Philipsburg VORTAC 301° radial extending from the VORTAC to 10 miles northwest of the VORTAC.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 4, 2018. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00395 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION 18 CFR Parts 401 and 440 Administrative Manual and Special Regulations Regarding Natural Gas Development Activities; Additional Clarifying Amendments AGENCY:

    Delaware River Basin Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission proposes to amend its Special Regulations by the addition of a section on hydraulic fracturing in shale and other rock formations, including: The prohibition of high volume hydraulic fracturing in such formations; provisions related to water use for hydraulic fracturing; and provisions related to the management of produced water from hydraulic fracturing. The Commission also proposes to amend its Administrative Manual—Rules of Practice and Procedure by the addition of project review classifications and fees related to the management of produced water from hydraulic fracturing of hydrocarbon bearing rock formations. Minor amendments to the project review classifications unrelated to hydraulic fracturing are also proposed.

    DATES:

    Written comments: Written comments will be accepted through 5 p.m. on March 30, 2018.

    Public hearings:

    1. January 23, 2018, 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Waymart, Wayne County, PA 2. January 23, 2018, 6:00 p.m. to as late as 9:30 p.m., Waymart, Wayne County, PA 3. January 25, 2018, 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Philadelphia, PA 4. January 25, 2018, 6:00 p.m. to as late as 9:30 p.m., Philadelphia, PA 5. February 22, 2018, 3 p.m. to as late as 7 p.m., Schnecksville, PA 6. March 6, 2018, 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., via telephone.

    Registration to attend hearings: Online registration to attend hearings will remain open until 5 p.m. the day prior to the hearing. (On-site registration will also be available at in-person venues.) Registrants will be afforded opportunities to request speaking time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written submissions: Written comments will be accepted through the Commission's online public comment collection system at: http://dockets.drbc.commentinput.com. To request an exception to use of the online system based on lack of access to the internet, please contact: Commission Secretary, DRBC, P.O. Box 7360, West Trenton, NJ 08628.

    The hearing locations are:

    • Ladore Camp, Retreat and Conference Center, 287 Owego Turnpike, Waymart, PA 18472 (Jan. 23) • DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Philadelphia Airport, 4509 Island Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19153 (Jan. 25) • LCCC Community Services Center, 4525 Education Park Drive, Schnecksville, PA 18078 (Feb. 22) • By telephone 866-831-8713 (Mar. 6)

    Registration to attend hearings: To register to attend one or more public hearings, use the links posted on the Commission's website at http://www.nj.gov/drbc/meetings/proposed/notice_hydraulic-fracturing.html (strongly recommended). On-site registration will also be available at in-person hearing venues. Registrants will be afforded opportunities to request speaking time.

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for important details regarding the substance of requested comments, registration to attend public hearings, and other aspects of the public process.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kate Schmidt, 609-477-7205, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC or “Commission”) is a regional interstate and federal agency formed by concurrent compact legislation of the four basin states and the federal government in 1961 to manage the water resources of the Delaware River Basin without regard to political boundaries. Its members are, ex officio, the governors of the basin states (Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania) and the commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers North Atlantic Division, who represents the federal government. Most actions of the Commission, including the adoption of rules to effectuate, apply and enforce the compact, require a majority vote of the Commission's five members.

    Background

    On September 13, 2017, the Commissioners by a Resolution for the Minutes directed the Executive Director to prepare and publish for public comment a revised set of draft regulations, to include: “(a) prohibitions relating to the production of natural gas utilizing horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing within the basin; (b) provisions for ensuring the safe and protective storage, treatment, disposal and/or discharge of wastewater within the basin associated with horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing for the production of natural gas where permitted; and (c) regulation of the inter-basin transfer of water and wastewater for purposes of natural gas development where permitted.”

    In accordance with the Commissioners' September 13 directive, the Commission is proposing amendments to its regulations and comprehensive plan to better provide for the planning, conservation, utilization, development, management and control of the basin's water resources in connection with the hydraulic fracturing of shale and other hydrocarbon bearing formations to produce oil and gas. The Commission proposes to prohibit high volume hydraulic fracturing within the basin to effectuate the comprehensive plan for the immediate and long-term development and use of the water resources of the basin, and to conserve, preserve and protect the quality and quantity of the basin's water resources for uses in accordance with the comprehensive plan.

    Through a series of policies and regulations establishing and amending its comprehensive plan, the Commission over the past half-century has established in-stream water quality standards throughout the basin, prohibited degradation of groundwater, and provided special protection to the non-tidal segment of the Delaware River to preserve its exceptionally high water quality and water supply values. As the agency through which the five signatory parties to the Compact collectively manage the basin's water resources on a regional basis, the Commission has taken these steps to meet public and private needs for, among other things, drinking water, recreation, power generation, and industrial activity, and to accommodate large out-of-basin diversions by the City of New York and the State of New Jersey that are authorized by the 1954 decree of the U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of New Jersey v. New York. 1

    1See New Jersey v. New York, 347 U.S. 995 (1954).

    Portions of Pennsylvania and New York comprising about 40 percent of the basin's geographic area are underlain by the Marcellus and Utica shales, geologic strata known to contain natural gas. Although the presence of commercially viable natural gas from these formations within the basin is not known, in regions of Pennsylvania west of the basin divide, oil and natural gas are extracted from the Marcellus and Utica formations by means of directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing using large volumes of water in a process referred to commonly in the region as “high volume hydraulic fracturing” (HVHF).2 The South Newark Basin formation, which underlies portions of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, may also contain oil and gas deposits capable of development by HVHF. All of the basin areas underlain by the Marcellus and Utica shales, with the exception of a small area of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, drain to waters the Commission has designated as “Special Protection Waters”, due to their exceptionally high scenic, recreational, ecological, and/or water supply values. The Commission's water quality management policy objective for Special Protection Waters is “that there be no measurable change [in the quality of these waters] except toward natural conditions.' ” 3

    2See generally, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program—Regulatory Program for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs, May 2015 (hereinafter, NYS Final SGEIS). Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html.

    3 Delaware River Basin Water Code (hereinafter, “Water Code”) (18 CFR part 410), § 3.10.3 A.2.

    During hydraulic fracturing, hydraulic fracturing fluid consisting primarily of water and recycled wastewater mixed with chemicals is injected through a well bore into the target rock formation under pressures great enough to fracture the rock. The fracturing fluid typically includes proppants (usually sand), which hold open the newly created fractures, allowing the gas to flow back through them and up the well to the surface. After a well is “stimulated” through hydraulic fracturing, much of the injected fracturing fluid, together with brines that were trapped within the target formation, is conveyed to the surface, where these fluids are collected and managed. The returned fluids, known as “flowback” and “produced water,” contain chemicals used in the fracturing mixture, as well as salts, metals, radionuclides, and hydrocarbons from the target rock formation. As discussed in greater detail below, in the Marcellus region in Pennsylvania, the median quantity of water required to stimulate a natural gas well exceeds 4 million gallons for each fracturing event.4 A single well may be fractured in multiple stages and/or multiple times,5 and as many as twelve wells may be installed on a single well pad.6 The volume of water and wastewater involved is thus significant.

    4 James L. Richenderfer et al., Water Use Associated with Natural Gas Development: An Assessment of Activities Managed by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission—July 2008-December 2013, Pub. No. 299, April 2016 (hereinafter, “SRBC NG Water Use 2016”), p.39. Available at: http://www.srbc.net/pubinfo/techdocs/NaturalGasReport/docs/SRBC_Full_Gas_Report_fs306397v1_20160408.pdf.

    5 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States, Dec. 2016 (EPA-600-R-16-236Fa) (hereinafter, “EPA HF Study 2016”). Exec. Sum., p. 23, n.3 (explaining that in a multi-stage hydraulic fracturing operation, specific parts of the well are isolated and hydraulically fractured until the total desired length of the well has been hydraulically fractured.) Available at: https://www.epa.gov/hfstudy. Also see, 18 CFR 806.3 (SRBC regulations for review and approval of projects, defining “hydrocarbon development project” as including “all other activities and facilities associated with . . . the production, maintenance, operation, closure, plugging and restoration of [unconventional natural gas development] wells or drilling pad sites that require water for purposes including but not limited to, re-stimulation and/or re-completion of such wells . . .” (emphasis added)).

    6See e.g., Alex K. Manda et al., Evolution of multi-well pad development and influence of well pads on environmental violations and wastewater volumes in the Marcellus shale (USA), J. Environ. Manage, Sep. 1, 2014, 142:36-45. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814546.

    The use of HVHF to extract oil and natural gas from tight shale formations presents risks, vulnerabilities and impacts to the quality and quantity of surface and ground water resources that have been documented extensively, including in comprehensive reports by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 7 and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),8 among others. These reports identify the risks to water resources associated with each of the steps in the “hydraulic fracturing water cycle,” 9 as summarized below. At times, these steps or portions thereof may be identified by the Commission as separate projects. In addition, an EPA technical background document describes industry processes, pollutants generated, risks, and available treatment technologies for produced water from oil and gas extraction.10 A significant number of data points in this document are provided for the Marcellus formation.

    7See NYS Final SGEIS 2016, supra n.1.

    8See EPA HF Study 2016, supra n.5.

    9 The term “hydraulic fracturing water cycle” is used by the EPA to describe the five stages of this water-intensive activity: water acquisition, chemical mixing, well injection, produced water handling, wastewater disposal and reuse. EPA HF Study 2016, Exec. Sum., pp. 7-9. Extracted at: https://www.epa.gov/hfstudy/hydraulic-fracturing-water-cycle.

    10See United States Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Development Document for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category, June 2016 (EPA-820-R-16-003) (hereinafter “EPA TDD 2016”). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/uog_oil-and-gas-extraction_tdd_2016.pdf.

    Water acquisition. The acquisition of water for use in HVHF may result in modifications to groundwater levels, surface water levels, and stream flows. The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) has reported that for the period 2008 through 2013 an average of 4.3 million gallons of water were injected per fracturing event in natural gas wells within the Susquehanna Basin.11 During the same period, 84 percent of injected water was “fresh” water from surface water and groundwater sources, and the remaining 16 percent was recycled produced water or flowback water.12 According to EPA, the median volume of water used per well fracturing event in Pennsylvania between January 2011 and February 2013 was 4.18 million gallons.13 EPA further reports that in at least 10 percent of cases, the water use in Pennsylvania during the same period was over 6.6 million gallons per well.14 EPA has reported that in the Marcellus formation in Pennsylvania, 82 to 90 percent of the base fluid used for hydraulic fracturing is fresh water that is naturally occurring and that the remaining base fluids (10 to 18 percent) are reused and recycled produced water.15 Advances in horizontal drilling technology are leading to longer drill paths and the need for more fracturing fluid volumes for each path. According to SRBC, when the industry began lengthening its lateral well bores in 2013, the average amount of water used per fracturing event increased to approximately 5.1 to 6.5 million gallons per fracturing event.16

    11 SRBC NG Water Use 2016, p. 39.

    12Id.

    13 EPA HF Study 2016, Exec. Sum., p. 11 (Table ES-1).

    14Id.

    15 EPA TDD 2016, p. 43 (Table C-1).

    16 SRBC NG Water Use 2016, p. 43.

    Withdrawals from surface and ground water in the amounts required for HVHF may adversely affect aquatic ecosystems and river channel and riparian resources downstream, including wetlands, and may diminish the quantity of water stored in an aquifer or a stream's capacity to assimilate pollutants. Because HVHF operations may significantly increase the volume of water withdrawn in a localized area, they may ultimately upset the balance between the demand on water resources and the availability of those resources for uses protected by the Commission's comprehensive plan, particularly during periods of low precipitation or drought.

    Consumptive use. In contrast with most domestic and commercial water use, most water used for HVHF is used “consumptively,” meaning it is not returned to the basin's usable ground or surface waters. According to the EPA, water accounts for 90 to 97 percent of all hydraulic fracturing fluids injected into a well for the purpose of extracting natural gas.17 EPA reports further that produced water, or water that flows from and through oil and gas wells to the surface as a by-product of oil and gas production over a ten-year operations period, makes up only 10 to 30 percent of the fluid injected. Accordingly, EPA estimates that 70 to 90 percent of the water used in high volume hydraulic fracturing is permanently removed from the water cycle.18 The SRBC's estimate is higher. SRBC reports that approximately 96 percent of water withdrawn by the natural gas industry is consumptively used in the hydraulic fracturing process and that the balance of the water is consumptively used for other activities at the drilling pads, such as well drilling, preparation of drilling muds and grout, dust control, maintenance operations, and site reclamation.19 In contrast, the DRBC estimates that 90 percent of water withdrawn for domestic and commercial uses in the Delaware River Basin is returned to basin waters, either by infiltration into aquifers or by discharge to surface waters after treatment at a wastewater treatment facility.20

    17 EPA HF Study 2016, Exec. Sum., p. 10.

    18Id., p. 12 (Fig. ES-4(a)).

    19 SRBC NG Water Use 2016, p. 38.

    20 For comparison with climatically similar areas and the world, see Kimberly H. Schaffer and Donna L. Runkle, Consumptive Water-Use Coefficients for the Great Lakes Basin and Climatically Similar Areas, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5197, p. 13 (Fig. 7). Available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5197/.

    Chemical use. Although chemical additives generally make up the smallest proportion of the overall composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids, they pose a comparatively high risk to ground and surface water quality relative to proppants and base fluids.21 Additives, which can be a single chemical or a mixture of chemicals, are combined with the base fluid to change its properties, including, for example, to adjust pH, increase fluid thickness, reduce friction, or limit bacterial growth. The EPA has identified 1,084 chemicals reported to have been added to hydraulic fracturing fluids between 2005 and 2013.22 The choice of which additives to use depends on the characteristics of the targeted rock formation, and in some cases chemical information is considered Confidential Business Information and not disclosed by the fracturing operator.23 Based upon EPA's analysis, the combination of activities and factors more likely than others to result in more frequent or more severe impacts to water resources are spills during the management of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources.24 In May 2015, an EPA study compiled data on and characterized 457 hydraulic fracturing related spills that occurred between January 2006 and April 2012 in eleven states.25 The study attributed these to equipment failure, human error, failure of container integrity, and other causes, including but not limited to well communication, weather and vandalism.26 Storage, equipment, well or wellhead, hose or line, and “unknown” were among the identified sources.27 Spills can affect both surface and groundwater resources, both locally and regionally, within the host state and in adjoining states. Pollution from spills and from hydraulic fracturing has occurred in parts of Pennsylvania outside the basin where high volume hydraulic fracturing is occurring.28

    21 EPA HF Study 2016, Exec. Sum., p.16.

    22Id. A comprehensive review of chemical additives is provided in EPA TDD 2016, pp. 43-47 (Sec. 1.2).

    23 EPA HF Study 2016, p. 5-20 (Text Box 5-2).

    24Id., Exec. Sum., p. 1.

    25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Review of State and Industry Spill Data: Characterization of Hydraulic Fracturing-Related Spills, May 2015 (EPA/601/R-14/001) (hereinafter “EPA HF Spill Data 2015”), p. 1. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/hfstudy/review-state-and-industry-spill-data-characterization-hydraulic-fracturing-related-spills-1.

    26 EPA HF Study 2016, p. 5-42.

    27Id.

    28See generally, NYS Final SGEIS, Ch. X. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/fsgeis2015ch10.pdf.

    Well drilling and construction. Well drilling, well construction and well stimulation associated with HVHF also carry risks for groundwater and surface water resources. These risks include turbidity or other disruptions in local ground water formations and local groundwater wells, and contamination of aquifers by fluids pumped into or flowing from rock formations penetrated by the drilling of the well, particularly in the event of a compromised well casing. Typically, the developable shale formations are vertically separated from potential freshwater aquifers by thousands of feet of sandstones and shales of moderate to low permeability. High-volume hydraulic fracturing is engineered to target the prospective hydrocarbon-producing zone. Although the induced fractures create a pathway to the intended wellbore, they typically do not create a discharge mechanism or pathway beyond the fractured zone where none existed before. However, because the well bore penetrates groundwater aquifers and can be a pathway for fluid movement to existing drinking water and other groundwater resources, the mechanical integrity of the well is an important factor that affects the frequency and severity of potential water resource impacts from pollutants. A well with insufficient mechanical integrity can increase the risk of impacts and allow unintended fluid movement, including into drinking water aquifers. Such defects can arise from inadequate well design or construction or can develop over the well's lifetime, including during hydraulic fracturing.29 In particular, casing and cement can degrade over the life of the well because of exposure to corrosive chemicals, formation stresses, and operational stresses (e.g., pressure and temperature changes during hydraulic fracturing).30 Gas migration can also potentially occur as a result of poor well construction (i.e., casing and cement problems), or through existing abandoned wells or faults, which may be intersected inadvertently by a new oil or natural gas well. The EPA examined these types of pathways for the migration of hydraulic fracturing fluids and liquids and/or gases that exist in the subsurface to affect the quality of subsurface drinking water resources and reported on failures and impacts to water resources in detail.31

    29 EPA HF Study 2016, Exec. Sum., p. 24.

    30Id.

    31Id., pp. 23-29. Also see Main Report, Ch. 6.

    Wastewater handling and disposal. “Produced water” (including “flowback” water) refers to any water or fluid returned to the surface through the production well as a waste product of hydraulic fracturing. This material may be stored in tanks or other containers on the pad site before it is transferred for off-site treatment and/or disposal. The composition of produced water depends on the composition of the injected hydraulic fracturing fluid and the composition of the target formation. In the Marcellus region, produced water is generated in large quantities and often contains high concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS or “salts”) and constituents that may be harmful to human health and the environment. Produced water from HVHF in the Marcellus formation has been found to contain: 32

    32See generally, EPA TDD 2016, pp. 59-81 (part C.3) for a comprehensive characterization of produced water that includes a significant number of data points for the Marcellus formation.

    • Salts, including chloride, bromide, sulfate, sodium, magnesium, and calcium;

    • Metals, including barium, manganese, iron, and strontium;

    • Naturally-occurring organic compounds, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), and oil and grease;

    • Radioactive materials, including radium; and

    • Hydraulic fracturing chemicals and their chemical transformation products.

    The disposal of produced water poses a significant risk to the water resources of the basin if the wastewater is not properly managed. The concentration of TDS in produced water can be high enough that if discharged untreated to surface water, the potential exists to adversely affect designated uses of surface water, including drinking water, aquatic life support, livestock watering, irrigation, and industrial use. Because produced water contains high TDS and dissolved inorganic constituents that most publicly owned treatment works and other municipal wastewater treatment facilities are not designed to remove, these constituents can be discharged untreated from such facilities; can disrupt treatment processes, for example by inhibiting biological treatment; can accumulate in biosolids (sewage sludge), limiting their beneficial use; and can facilitate the formation of harmful disinfection byproducts.33 Where produced water has been discharged to domestic wastewater treatment facilities in the past, elevated concentrations of chloride and bromide have been documented in the receiving waters.34 The discharge of bromide upstream of drinking water intakes has led in documented instances to the formation of carcinogenic disinfection by-products at drinking water utilities.35

    33 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category, Final Rule, 81 FR 41845, 41847c.

    34 William D. Burgos et al., Watershed-Scale Impacts from Surface Water Disposal of Oil and Gas Wastewater in Western Pennsylvania. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2017, 51 (15), pp. 8851-8860.

    Available at: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.7b01696.

    35 Kimberly M. Parker et al., Enhanced formation of disinfection byproducts in shale gas wastewater-impacted drinking water supplies. Environ Sci Technol. 2014 Oct 7; 48 (19), pp. 11161-9.

    Available at: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es5028184.

    The EPA since 1979 has required zero discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States from onshore oil and gas extraction wastewater. In 2016 EPA finalized a rule establishing pretreatment standards for discharges of wastewater from onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction facilities to municipal sewage treatment plants (also known as “publicly owned treatment works” or POTWs).36 The recent EPA rule will protect POTWs from disruptions in their operations that can be caused by these wastewaters. However, the rule does not extend to commercially owned treatment works that primarily treat domestic and commercial wastewater, and it does not address the discharge to POTWs of produced water that has been partially treated at centralized waste treatment facilities. Thus, significant risks associated with the treatment and discharge of produced water remain outside the scope of current federal regulations.

    36Id., pp. 41485-41857.

    Siting and Landscapes. Certain water resources in the basin have high water resource value because of their excellent water quality or their exceptional ability to perform water supply, ecological, recreational or other water-related functions. The Commission has classified certain of these waters as Special Protection Waters through provisions of its Water Code incorporated in the comprehensive plan.37 The Water Code seeks to maintain or improve the condition of these water resources through regulatory requirements such as prevention of measurable change to existing water quality, evaluation of natural wastewater treatment system alternatives, conditions or limitations on wastewater treatment facilities and control of non-point sources.38

    37See Water Code, § 3.10.3 A.2, 18 CFR part 410.

    38Id.

    Many high value water resources are associated with and dependent on their surrounding landscapes. Special Protection Waters are located in the upper portion of the basin where forested headwater areas and riparian buffers slow the rate and volume of stormwater runoff, replenish groundwater that serves as a source of drinking water and sustains stream flow, and control the introduction of pollutants into streams. These landscape features are particularly effective at controlling non-point source pollution that may occur following precipitation events.

    High volume hydraulic fracturing and the related alteration of landscapes required to support that activity pose risk to high value water resources. It is expected that practically all of the development and related disturbances from high volume hydraulic fracturing would occur in the drainage area of Special Protection Waters.39 Approximately 70 percent of the basin area underlain by the Marcellus and Utica shales (largely in the drainage area of Special Protection Waters) is forested. The average total disturbance associated with a single well pad, including associated access roads and utility corridors, is estimated at 7.7 acres.40 Off-site facilities such as gathering lines involve additional disturbances. These landscape changes will reduce forested areas and potentially vegetated buffers, increase non-point source pollution, diminish groundwater infiltration, and risk adversely affecting water quality and quantity in surface and groundwater. Because high volume hydraulic fracturing would most likely occur in headwater areas in the drainage area to Special Protection Waters, the risks of degrading water resources and impairing the effectuation of the comprehensive plan are of particular concern.

    39See DRBC map at: http://www.nj.gov/drbc/library/documents/maps/SPW-MarcellusShale.pdf.

    40 E.T. Slonecker et al., Landscape Consequences of Natural Gas Extraction in Allegheny and Susquehanna Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004-2010; U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2013-1025, p. 19 (Table 2) (converted to acres).

    Uncertainty. The comprehensive EPA and New York DEC studies cited above report multiple instances of damage to water resources associated with all stages of the natural gas development process, and importantly, both sources emphasize the degree of uncertainty regarding potential future effects. The EPA report states:

    Cases of impacts were identified for all stages of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle. Identified impacts generally occurred near hydraulically fractured oil and gas production wells and ranged in severity, from temporary changes in water quality to contamination that made private drinking water wells unusable . . . However, significant data gaps and uncertainties in the available data prevented us from calculating or estimating the national frequency of impacts on drinking water resources from activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle. The data gaps and uncertainties described in this report also precluded a full characterization of the severity of impacts. 41

    41 EPA HF Study 2016, Exec. Sum., p. 2.

    The New York State DEC study asserts:

    . . . a broad range of experts from academia, industry, environmental organizations, municipalities, and the medical and public health professions commented and/or provided their analyses of high-volume hydraulic fracturing. The comments referenced an increasing number of ongoing scientific studies across a wide range of professional disciplines. These studies and expert comments evidence that significant uncertainty remains regarding the level of risk to public health and the environment that would result from permitting high-volume hydraulic fracturing in New York, and regarding the degree of effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures. In fact, the uncertainty regarding the potential significant adverse environmental and public health impacts has been growing over time. . . . . Potential significant adverse impacts on water resources exist with regard to potential degradation of drinking water supplies; impacts to surface and underground water resources due to large water withdrawals for high-volume hydraulic fracturing; cumulative impacts; stormwater runoff; surface spills, leaks and pit or surface impoundment failures; groundwater impacts associated with well drilling and construction and seismic activity; [and] waste disposal. . . .” 42

    42 NYS Final SGEIS 2016, pp. 1, 13.

    Additional detail regarding damages to water resources and the risks, vulnerabilities and impacts to surface and ground water resources associated with HVHF can be found in the cited reports.

    Related Statutory and Regulatory Provisions

    The proposed rules regarding hydraulic fracturing arise from clauses of the Commission's organic statute, the Delaware River Basin Compact (“Compact”),43 and from provisions of the Delaware River Basin Water Code, comprehensive plan and past determinations.

    43 United States Public Law 87-328, Approved Sept. 27, 1961, 75 Statutes at Large 688; 53 Delaware Laws, Ch. 71, Approved May 26, 1961; New Jersey Laws of 1961, Ch. 13, Approved May 1, 1961; New York Laws of 1961, Ch. 148, Approved March 17, 1961; Pennsylvania Acts of 1961, Act. No. 268, Approved July 7, 1961.

    The Compact recognizes the water and related resources of the Delaware River Basin as regional assets vested with local, state, and national interests, for which the signatory parties have shared responsibility.44 The Compact further recognizes that the economic development of the region as a whole and the health, safety, and general welfare of its population will remain vitally affected by management of these resources.45 Through the Compact, the signatory parties expressly provided that “[t]he commission may assume jurisdiction to control future pollution and abate existing pollution in the waters of the basin, whenever it determines after investigation and public hearing upon due notice that the effectuation of the comprehensive plan so requires.” 46

    44See Delaware River Basin Compact (hereinafter, “Compact”), Part I, 1st Whereas clause.

    45See id., 8th Whereas clause.

    46See id., § 5.2.

    By regulation, the Commission has determined that the basin's waters are limited in quantity and that frequent drought warnings and drought declarations are needed due to limited water supply, storage and streamflow during dry periods. For these reasons, the Commission has adopted a policy of discouraging exportations of water from the basin.47 The Commission also has recognized that the basin's waters have limited assimilative capacity and in particular, limited capacity to accept conservative substances without significant impacts. On this basis and on grounds that the assimilative capacity of the basin's waters should be reserved for in-basin users, the Commission has adopted a policy of discouraging the importation of wastewater into the basin when it would significantly reduce the assimilative capacity of the receiving stream.48 No credit toward meeting wastewater treatment requirements is granted for wastewater imported into the basin when wasteload allocations have been established.49 The Commission in 2000 determined by resolution that allocations of the waste assimilative capacity of the Delaware River Estuary are necessary to maintain stream quality objectives in Zones 2, 3, 4 and 5 for acute and chronic toxicity 50 and in Zones 2 and 3 for the chemicals 1, 2 dichloroethane and tetrachloroethene.51

    47See Water Code, § 2.30.2.

    48See id.

    49See Id., § 2.30.6.

    50See DRBC Resolution No. 2000-4, “Be it resolved” par. 4.

    51See id., “Be it resolved” par. 1.

    The Commission's Special Protection Waters program establishes a water quality objective of no measurable change in existing water quality except towards natural conditions in waters that the Commission has designated as of exceptionally high scenic, recreational, ecological, and/or water supply value. The Commission has so designated virtually all of the non-tidal main stem, as well as the portions of tributaries to the main stem located within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.52

    52See Water Code, §§ 3.10.3. A.2. and A.2.e.

    The Commission has determined that the basin's underground water resources are to be “used, conserved, developed, managed, and controlled in view of the need of present and future generations.” To that end, it has provided by rule that interference, impairment, penetration, or artificial recharge of groundwater may be subject to the Commission's review.53 In accordance with Commission regulations, substances or properties in harmful or toxic concentrations or that produce color, taste, or odor of the water may not be “permitted or induced by the activities of man to become ground water.” 54 The Commission has asserted by rule that it may establish requirements, conditions, or prohibitions that in its judgment are necessary to protect ground water quality.55

    53Id., § 2.20.6.

    54See id., § 3.40.5 B.1.

    55See id., § 3.40.5 B.3.

    Summary of Proposed Rules

    Prohibition. Section 5.2 of the Compact authorizes the Commission to “assume jurisdiction to control future pollution . . . in the waters of the basin, whenever it determines after investigation and public hearing upon due notice that the effectuation of the comprehensive plan so requires.” It further authorizes the Commission to control pollution from industrial or other waste originating within a basin state so that the pollution does not “injuriously affect the waters of the basin as contemplated by the comprehensive plan.” The Commission may also adopt rules, regulations and standards to control future pollution. Considering the totality of the risks that HVHF poses to basin water resources, the Commission proposes in Section 440.3(b) of the draft rule to determine that controlling pollution by prohibiting high volume hydraulic fracturing in the basin is required to effectuate the comprehensive plan, avoid injury to the waters of the basin as contemplated by the comprehensive plan and protect the public health and preserve the waters of the Basin for uses in accordance with the comprehensive plan.

    Water Exports. The transfer of surface water, groundwater, treated wastewater or mine drainage water, at any rate or volume, for utilization in hydraulic fracturing to produce oil and gas outside the Delaware River Basin is proposed to require Commission approval. Currently, exports of water from the basin of less than the daily average quantity of 100,000 gallons are deemed to have no substantial effect on the basin's water resources and are thus not reviewed by the Commission under section 3.8 of the Compact. The Commission has a longstanding policy of discouraging exportations of water on the grounds that the availability of water to meet in-basin needs is limited and low-flow and drought conditions are frequent. Unlike regulated withdrawals for domestic, commercial and industrial water supplies, withdrawals of large quantities of water for hydraulic fracturing to produce oil and gas have the potential, if unregulated, to occur through de-centralized, periodic and transient means and thus to adversely affect headwater streams and minimum flows of surface and groundwater, and to impair uses protected by the Commission's comprehensive plan. The proposed rule will make all proposed exports of water for oil and gas extraction subject to the requirement that alternatives involving no exportation be analyzed and that the water resource, economic and social impacts of the proposal be evaluated.

    Wastewater. As set forth above, the data available on produced water (including flowback) from hydraulically fractured wells in the Marcellus formation indicate that this waste stream is unlike other industrial and domestic waste streams treated and discharged in the Delaware River Basin, and that it poses significant risks to human health and the environment if improperly handled. Under the proposed rules, the “produced water” from the hydrocarbon-bearing strata during oil and gas extraction is broadly defined to include untreated produced water, diluted produced water, and produced water mixed with other wastes. The rule provides that this material may not be transferred to, treated by or discharged from or to a new or existing wastewater treatment facility located within the Delaware River Basin, at any volume or rate, except in accordance with an approval in the form of a docket issued by the Commission to the owner or operator of the wastewater treatment facility or in accordance with a state permit issued pursuant to a duly adopted administrative agreement between the Commission and the host state. The rule further provides that produced water may not be treated within the basin except at a centralized waste treatment facility (CWT) as that term is defined by the EPA in 40 CFR part 437 and may not be discharged within the basin without treatment at a CWT. Because current EPA regulations governing treatment by CWTs do not include limitations for pollutants commonly found in produced water, such as total dissolved solids, barium, bromide, radium and strontium,56 the proposed rule also places conditions on the treatment and discharge of wastewater or effluent resulting from the treatment of produced water by a CWT (“CWT wastewater”) before the CWT wastewater can be discharged to basin waters or to another treatment facility within the basin.

    56 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, July 2015 (EPA-821-R-15-002), p. 5-4 (sec. 5.3.2). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/final-2014-effluent-guidelines-program-plan_july-2015.pdf. A detailed EPA study of the CWT industry focused on facilities accepting oil and gas extraction wastewaters is ongoing. See Preliminary 2016 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, June 2016 (EPA-821-R-16-001), p. 6-1 (sec. 6.1).

    The Commission already has in place a policy to discourage the importation of wastewater into the basin due to the limited capacity of the basin's waters to assimilate waste. Proposals to import produced water and CWT wastewater into the basin will be subject to this policy and to the requirements that alternatives involving no importation be analyzed and that the water resource, economic and social impacts of the proposal be evaluated.

    Under the proposed rules, projects involving the treatment and discharge of produced water within the basin must meet the more stringent of applicable federal, state and DRBC requirements. Additional effluent limitations are proposed to apply to such projects for TDS, whole effluent toxicity, and a set of “pollutants of concern” identified on the basis of produced water characterizations provided by EPA in a 2016 technical document.57 The majority of the EPA's primary and secondary drinking water standards are also proposed as treatment levels for produced water discharged to a receiving waterbody designated for use as a public water supply. Treatability studies will be required to ensure that pollutant loads from natural gas wastewater are thoroughly characterized and that treatment ensures these pollutants are effectively reduced or eliminated, such that applicable effluent limits, stream quality objectives, protected uses, and in the case of Special Protection Waters, the “no measurable change” objective, are attained. Because the proposed rule requires treatment to “background concentrations” for pollutants of concern in many instances, the Commission is simultaneously publishing draft guidance on acceptable methods for determining background concentrations of these pollutants.

    57See EPA TDD 2016, pp. 59-81 (Part C.3).

    Other changes. Revisions to the Commission's thresholds for review set forth at 18 CFR 401.35 are proposed to establish that certain activities relating to hydraulic fracturing in hydrocarbon-bearing formations are deemed to constitute projects having a substantial effect on water resources of the basin and are thus subject to review under Section 3.8 of the Compact. These include: the importation, treatment, or discharge to basin land or water of “produced water” as defined by the rule; and the exportation of water from the basin for uses related to hydraulic fracturing. Although certain additional activities and facilities on a well pad site could be separately identified by the Commission as projects, in light of the proposed prohibition, no changes to existing rules are proposed in this regard at this time. Minor changes are concurrently proposed to existing thresholds for the Commission's review of leachate discharges and wetlands.

    To provide for appropriate fees to cover the cost of reviews of new classes of projects deemed to require the Commission's approval, changes are also proposed to section 401.43 (regulatory program fees).

    Executive Director Determinations

    The final regulations relating to natural gas development when adopted will supersede and replace the Executive Director's Determinations issued on May 19, 2009, June 14, 2010 and July 23, 2010.

    Public Process

    Substance of comments: The Commission expressly seeks comment on the effects the proposed rules may have within the basin on: Water availability, the control and abatement of water pollution, economic development, the conservation and protection of drinking water supplies, the conservation and protection of aquatic life, the conservation and protection of water quality in Special Protection Waters, and the protection, maintenance and improvement of water quantity and quality basinwide. Comment is also requested on whether use of base fluids other than water for HVHF is practical within the basin and if so, how it should be addressed in these rules, and on any alternatives to the proposed rules that the commenters would like the Commission to consider, as well as on draft guidance published simultaneously with the rules for determining background concentrations of certain pollutants. The Commission welcomes and will consider any other comments that concern the potential effects of the draft rules on the conservation, utilization, development, management and control of the water and related resources of the Delaware River Basin. Comments on matters not within this scope may not be considered.

    Non-digitized voluminous materials such as books, journals or collected letters/petitions will not be accepted. Digital submissions of these, as well as articles and websites, must be accompanied by a statement containing citations to the specific findings or conclusions the commenter wishes to reference.

    Submission of written comments. Written comments along with any attachments may be submitted through the Commission's web-based comment system (http://dockets.drbc.commentinput.com) until 5 p.m. on March 30, 2018. All materials should be provided in searchable formats, preferably in .pdf searchable text. Notably, a picture scan of a document may not result in searchable text. Comments received through any method other than the designated on-line method, including via email, fax, postal/delivery services or hand delivery, will not be considered or included in the rulemaking record unless an express exception has been granted. Requests for exceptions to the web-based-submissions-only policy based on lack of access to the web-based comment system may be addressed to: Commission Secretary, DRBC, P.O. Box 7360, West Trenton, NJ 08628.

    Public hearings. To reduce uncertainty on the part of attendees about whether they will have a seat and an opportunity to speak at a public hearing, and to provide for a safe and orderly process, the Commission is requiring registration online or on-site to attend each public hearing. Use of the online, web-based registration system is encouraged, as this system will track and publish in real time the available capacity for each hearing. Key dates, times and addresses are set forth at the top of this notice. Key elements of the procedure are as follows:

    • Online or on-site registration is required to attend each public hearing.

    • Online registration to attend will remain open until 5 p.m. the day prior to each hearing.

    • On-site registration will be available at all in-person hearing venues.

    • Available capacity for each in-person hearing will be posted on the web-based registration system. When users access the system, they will see the number of seats still available or if the venue is at capacity.

    • If capacity has been reached for a specific hearing, online registrants will be placed on a waiting list.

    • Those who do not register to attend a hearing in advance are advised to check the availability of seats BEFORE planning travel to a hearing.

    • Public hearing registrants will be afforded opportunities to request speaking time.

    • If more people request to speak than time allows, those not assigned time will be placed on a waiting list.

    • If fewer people request to speak than time allows, additional opportunities to request time will be provided on or before the hearing date.

    • Elected government officials and their staff will have the opportunity to identify themselves when registering to attend a hearing.

    • Written and oral comment will receive equal consideration.

    The Commission appreciates the public's participation and input on this important matter. In order to provide as many individuals who wish to speak as possible with an opportunity to do so, each person will be limited to one time slot at one hearing location. Depending on the number who wish to be heard, speakers will be limited to two or three minutes. To ensure that scheduled public hearings meet the objectives of the Commission and the interested public in a safe and orderly process, it is essential that public hearing procedures are understood and followed. Participants are asked to review all DRBC public hearing procedures at: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/library/documents/procedures_public-hearings050317.pdf. The Commission's policies related to speaker conduct, audience conduct, safety, security, signs, placards and banners will be in effect at these public hearings. The public is reminded that oral and written comments will receive the same consideration.

    More Information Available. Detailed and up-to-date information about the public process, including a version of the proposed rule text that shows proposed additions and deletions to 18 CFR part 401, draft guidance concerning the calculation of background pollutant concentrations (associated with proposed 18 CFR part 440) and links for online registration to attend each of the scheduled public hearings can be found on the DRBC website, drbc.net, at http://www.nj.gov/drbc/meetings/proposed/notice_hydraulic-fracturing.html.

    List of Subjects 18 CFR Part 401

    Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Water pollution control, Water resources.

    18 CFR Part 440

    Water pollution control, Water resources, Water supply, Waste treatment and disposal.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Delaware River Basin Commission proposes to amend title 18, chapter III of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 401—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 401 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Delaware River Basin Compact (75 Stat. 688), unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 401.35 by: a. Revising introductory text to paragraph (a) and paragraphs (a)(2), (4), (5), (15), (16) and (18); b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(19) as (a)(20); c. Adding a new paragraph (a)(19); d. Removing paragraph (b)(14); e. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(15) through (18) as (b)(14) through (17); f. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (b)(14); g. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (b)(17); h. Adding new paragraphs (b)(18) and (19); i. Revising paragraph (c); j. Removing paragraph (d).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 401.35 Classification of projects for review under section 3.8 of the Compact.

    (a) Except as the Commission may specially direct by notice to the project owner or sponsor, a project in any of the following classifications will be deemed not to have a substantial effect on the water resources of the Basin and is not required to be submitted under section 3.8 of the Compact:

    (2) A withdrawal from ground water when the daily average gross withdrawal during any 30 consecutive day period does not exceed 100,000 gallons;

    (4) Except as provided at paragraph (b)(18) of this section, the construction of new domestic sewage treatment facilities or alteration or addition to existing domestic sewage treatment facilities when the design capacity of such facilities is less than a daily average rate of 10,000 gallons per day in the drainage area to Outstanding Basin Waters and Significant Resource Waters or less than 50,000 gallons per day elsewhere in the Basin; and all local sewage collector systems and improvements discharging into authorized trunk sewage systems;

    (5) Except as provided at paragraph (b)(18) of this section, the construction of new facilities or alteration or addition to existing facilities for the direct discharge to surface or ground waters of industrial wastewater having design capacity of less than 10,000 gallons per day in the drainage area to Outstanding Basin Waters and Significant Resource Waters or less than 50,000 gallons per day elsewhere in the Basin; except where such wastewater contains toxic concentrations of waste materials;

    (15) Draining, filling or otherwise altering marshes or wetlands when the area affected is less than 25 acres; provided; however, that areas less than 25 acres shall be subject to Commission review and action where neither a state nor a federal level review and permit system is in effect;

    (16) Except as provided at paragraph (b)(19) of this section, the diversion or transfer of water from the Delaware River Basin (exportation) whenever the design capacity is less than a daily average rate of 100,000 gallons;

    (18) Except as provided at paragraph (b)(18) of this section, the diversion or transfer of wastewater into the Delaware River Basin (importation) whenever the design capacity is less than a daily average rate of 50,000 gallons; and

    (19) To the extent allowed in the basin (see prohibition at § 440.3(b) of this title), projects involving hydraulic fracturing, unless no state-level review and permit system is in effect;

    (b) * * *

    (14) Leachate treatment and disposal projects associated with landfills and solid waste disposal facilities in the basin;

    (17) Any other project that the Commission may specially direct by notice to the project sponsor or land owner as having a potential substantial water quality impact on waters classified as Special Protection Waters.

    (18) The importation, treatment, or discharge to basin land or water of “produced water” or CWT wastewater as those terms are defined in § 440.2 of this chapter.

    (19) The transfer, diversion or exportation of water from the basin at any volume or rate for uses related to “hydraulic fracturing” as that term is defined in § 440.2 of this chapter.

    (c) Regardless of whether expressly excluded from review by paragraph (a) of this section, any project or class of projects that in the view of the Commission could have a substantial effect on the water resources of the basin may, upon special notice to the project sponsor or landowner, be subject to the requirement for review under section 3.8 of the Compact.

    3. Amend § 401.43 by: a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text, (b)(1)(iii) introductory text and (b)(2)(i); b. Adding paragraph (b)(3)(v); c. Revising paragraphs (b)(4)(iii) and (c); d. Revising Tables 1 and 2.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 401.43 Regulatory program fees.

    (b) * * *

    (1) Application fee. Except as set forth in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, the application fee shall apply to:

    (iii) Exemptions. The application fee shall not apply to:

    (2) Annual monitoring and coordination fee. (i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, an annual monitoring and coordination fee shall apply to each active water allocation or wastewater discharge approval issued pursuant to the Compact and implementing regulations, regardless of whether the approval was issued by the Commission in the form of a docket, permit or other instrument, or by a Signatory Party Agency under the One Permit Program rule (§ 401.42).

    (3) * * *

    (v) A project involves treatability studies for the discharge of wastewater.

    (4) * * *

    (iii) Modification of a DRBC approval. Following Commission action on a project, each project revision or modification that the Executive Director deems substantial shall require an additional application fee calculated in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section and subject to an alternative review fee in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

    (c) Indexed adjustment. On July 1 of every year, beginning July 1, 2017, all fees established by this section will increase commensurate with any increase in the annual April 12-month Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Philadelphia, published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics during that year.1 In any year in which the April 12-month CPI for Philadelphia declines or shows no change, the application fee and annual monitoring and coordination fee will remain unchanged. Following any indexed adjustment made under this paragraph (c), a revised fee schedule will be published in the Federal Register by July 1 and posted on the Commission's website. Interested parties may also obtain the fee schedule by contacting the Commission directly during business hours.

    1 Consumer Price Index—U/Series ID: CWURA102SA0/Not Seasonally Adjusted/Area: Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD/Item: All items/Base Period: 1982-84=100.

    Table 1 to § 401.43—Application Fees Project type Application fee Fee maximum Water Allocation $405 per million gallons/month of allocation,1 not to exceed $15,190.1 Fee is doubled for any portion to be exported from the basin Greater of: $15,190 1 or Alternative Review Fee. Wastewater Discharge Private projects: $1,013.1 Public projects: $506.1 Projects involving wastewater treatability studies: $5,000.1 Alternative Review Fee. Other 0.4% of project cost up to $10,000,000 plus 0.12% of project cost above $10,000,000 (if applicable), not to exceed $75,951.1 Greater of: $75,951 1 or Alternative Review Fee. 1 Subject to an annual adjustment in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. Table 2 to § 401.43—Annual Monitoring and Coordination Fee Annual fee Allocation Water Allocation $304 1 <4.99 mgm. $456 1 5.00 to 49.99 mgm. $658 1 50.00 to 499.99 mgm. $835 1 500.00 to 9,999.99 mgm. $1,013 1 > or = to 10,000 mgm. Wastewater Discharge Annual fee Discharge design capacity $304 1 <0.05 mgd. $618 1 0.05 to 0.99 mgd. $830 1 1 to 9.99 mgd. $1,013 1 > or = to 10 mgd. 1 Subject to annual adjustment in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
    4. Add Part 440 to Subchapter B—Special Regulations to read as follows: PART 440—HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN SHALE AND OTHER FORMATIONS Sec. 440.1 Purpose, authority and relationship to other requirements. 440.2 Definitions. 440.3 High volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF). 440.4 Exportation of water for hydraulic fracturing. 440.5 Produced water. Authority:

    Delaware River Basin Compact (75 Stat. 688).

    § 440.1 Purpose, authority and relationship to other requirements.

    (a) Purpose. The purpose of this part is to protect and conserve the water resources of the Delaware River Basin. To effectuate this purpose, this section establishes standards, requirements, conditions and restrictions to prevent or reduce depletion and degradation of surface and groundwater resources and to promote sound practices of water resource management.

    (b) Authority. This part implements sections 1.5, 3.6(b), 3.8, 4.1, 5.2, 7.1, 13.1 and 14.2(a) of the Delaware River Basin Compact.

    (c) Comprehensive plan. The Commission has determined that the provisions of this part are required for the immediate and long-range development and use of the water resources of the Basin and are therefore incorporated into the Commission's comprehensive plan.

    (d) Relationship to other Commission requirements. (1) The provisions of this part are in addition to all applicable requirements in other Commission regulations, dockets and permits.

    (2) Upon the effective date of this rule, the Executive Director Determinations dated May 19, 2009, June 14, 2010 and July 23, 2010, to the extent not already superseded by the Commission's Resolution dated December 8, 2010, are no longer operative.

    (e) Severability. The provisions of this part are severable. If any provision of this part or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the invalidity will not affect other provisions or applications of this part, which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

    (f) Coordination and avoidance of duplication. In accordance with and pursuant to section 1.5 of the Delaware River Basin Compact, to the fullest extent it finds feasible and advantageous the Commission may enter into an Administrative Agreement (Agreement) with any basin state or the federal government to coordinate functions and eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort. Such Agreements will be designed to: Effectuate intergovernmental cooperation, minimize the efforts and duplication of state and Commission staff resources wherever possible, ensure compliance with Commission-approved requirements, enhance early notification of the general public and other interested parties regarding proposed activities in the basin, indicate where a host state's requirements satisfy the Commission's regulatory objectives and clarify the relationship and project review decision making processes of the states and the Commission for projects subject to review by the states under their state authorities and by the Commission under section 3.8 and articles 6, 7, 10 and 11 of the Compact.

    § 440.2 Definitions.

    For purposes of this part, the following terms and phrases have the meanings provided. Some definitions differ from those provided in regulations of one or more agencies of the Commission's member states and the federal government.

    Basin—The area of drainage into the Delaware River and its tributaries, including Delaware Bay.

    Centralized waste treatment facility (CWT)—As defined by EPA at 40 CFR 437.2(c), any facility that treats (for disposal, recycling or recovery of material) any hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastes, hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastewater, and/or used material received from off-site. “CWT facility” includes both a facility that treats waste received exclusively from off-site and a facility that treats wastes generated on-site as well as waste received from off-site.

    Commission—The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) created and constituted by the Delaware River Basin Compact.

    Conservative substances—Pollutants that undergo no or minimal transformation or decay in a water body or groundwater, except by dilution.

    CWT wastewater—For purposes of this part, “CWT wastewater” means any wastewater or effluent resulting from the treatment of produced water by a CWT.

    Docket—A legal instrument issued by the Commission approving, or approving as modified, a project having a substantial effect on water resources of the basin. The approval may modify the project by imposing conditions to prevent the project from substantially impairing or conflicting with the Commission's comprehensive plan.

    Domestic wastewater—Liquid waste that contains pollutants produced by a domestic residence or residences or by a non-residential facility that generates wastewater with the same characteristics as residential wastewater.

    Executive Director—The Executive Director of the Delaware River Basin Commission.

    Flowback—Fluids returned to the surface through an oil or gas well once hydraulic fracturing pressure is released. Flowback can also refer to the stage of well completion in which fluids are returned to the surface through the well after fracturing is performed.

    Groundwater—Includes all water beneath the surface of the ground.

    High-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF)—Hydraulic fracturing using a combined total of 300,000 or more gallons of water during all stages in a well completion, whether the well is vertical or directional, including horizontal, and whether the water is fresh or recycled and regardless of the chemicals or other additives mixed with the water.

    Hydraulic fracturing—A technique used to stimulate the production of oil and natural gas from a well by injecting fracturing fluids down the wellbore under pressure to create and maintain induced fractures in the hydrocarbon-bearing rock of the target geologic formation.

    Fracturing fluid(s)—A mixture of water (whether fresh or recycled) and/or other fluids and chemicals or other additives, which are injected into the subsurface and which may include chemicals used to reduce friction, minimize biofouling of fractures, prevent corrosion of metal pipes or remove drilling mud damage within a wellbore area, and propping agents such as silica sand, which are deposited in the induced fractures.

    Person—Any natural person, corporation, partnership, association, company, trust, federal, state or local governmental unit, agency, or authority, or other entity, public or private.

    Pollutants—Any substance which when introduced into water resources, including surface water or groundwater, degrades natural or existing water quality, including but not limited to: Dredge spoils, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemicals and chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, methane, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, sediment, cellar dirt, and industrial, municipal or agricultural waste as well as any substance defined as a pollutant, contaminant or hazardous substance by any federal or state statute or regulation.

    Pollutants of concern—Conservative, radioactive, toxic or other substances that are potentially present in produced water, consisting of all parameters listed in the EPA Technical Development Document for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (June 2016), specifically all pollutants for produced water listed in Tables C-11, C-13, C-15, C-17, and C-19.

    Produced water—The water that flows out of an oil or gas well, typically including other fluids and pollutants and other substances from the hydrocarbon-bearing strata. Produced water may contain “flowback” fluids, fracturing fluids and any chemicals injected during the stimulation process, formation water, and constituents leached from geologic formations. For purposes of §§ 401.35(b)(18) and 440.5, the term “produced water” encompasses untreated produced water, diluted produced water, and produced water mixed with other wastes.

    Wastewater treatment facility—Any facility treating and discharging wastewater.

    Water resource(s)—Water and related natural resources in, on, under, or above the ground, including related uses of land, which are subject to beneficial use, ownership or control within the hydrologic boundary of the Delaware River Basin.

    § 440.3 High volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF)

    (a) Determination. The Commission has determined that high volume hydraulic fracturing poses significant, immediate and long-term risks to the development, conservation, utilization, management, and preservation of the water resources of the Delaware River Basin and to Special Protection Waters of the basin, considered by the Commission to have exceptionally high scenic, recreational, ecological, and/or water supply values. Controlling future pollution by prohibiting such activity in the basin is required to effectuate the comprehensive plan, avoid injury to the waters of the basin as contemplated by the comprehensive plan and protect the public health and preserve the waters of the basin for uses in accordance with the comprehensive plan.

    (b) Prohibition. High volume hydraulic fracturing in hydrocarbon bearing rock formations is prohibited within the Delaware River Basin.

    § 440.4 Exportation of water for hydraulic fracturing

    As set forth in section 2.30 of the Delaware River Basin Water Code (“Water Code”) (incorporated by reference at part 410 of this chapter), it is the policy of the Commission to discourage the exportation of water from the Delaware River Basin. Accordingly, the diversion, transfer or exportation of water from sources within the basin to support hydraulic fracturing outside the basin is discouraged. The transfer of surface water, groundwater, treated wastewater or mine drainage water, at any rate or volume, for utilization in hydraulic fracturing of hydrocarbon bearing rock formations outside the basin requires Commission approval in the form of a docket and shall be subject to the evaluation described by section 2.30.4 of the Water Code.

    § 440.5 Produced water.

    (a) Related Commission policies. (1) It is the policy of the Commission to discourage the importation of wastewater into the basin (see section 2.30.2 of the Delaware River Basin Water Code, incorporated by reference at part 410 of this chapter).

    (2) It is the policy of the Commission to give no credit toward meeting wastewater treatment requirements for wastewater imported into the Basin (see section 2.30.6 of the Delaware River Basin Water Code incorporated by reference at part 410 of this chapter).

    (3) The Commission has determined by Resolution No. 2000-4 that allocations of the waste assimilative capacity of the Delaware River Estuary are necessary to maintain stream quality objectives for acute toxicity and chronic toxicity in Water Quality Zones 2, 3, 4 and 5 and for 1,2 dichloroethane and tetrachloroethene in Water Quality Zones 2 and 3.

    (4) It is the policy of the Commission that there be no measurable change in existing water quality except towards natural conditions in waters considered by the Commission to have exceptionally high scenic, recreational, ecological, and/or water supply values. Waters with exceptional values may be classified by the Commission as either Outstanding Basin Waters or Significant Resource Waters. (See section 3.10.3.2 of the Delaware River Basin Water Code, incorporated by reference at part 410 of this chapter).

    (5) Effluents shall not create a menace to public health or safety at the point of discharge. (See section 3.10.4 of the Delaware River Basin Water Code, incorporated by reference at part 410 of this chapter).

    (6) The underground water resources of the Basin shall be used, conserved, developed, managed, and controlled in view of the needs of present and future generations, and in view of the resources available to them. To that end, interference, impairment, penetration, or artificial recharge shall be subject to review and evaluation under the Compact. (See section 2.20.6 of the Delaware River Basin Water Code, incorporated by reference at part 410 of this chapter).

    (b) Approval required. Produced water and CWT wastewater as defined in this part may not be imported into the Basin except by a new or existing wastewater treatment facility located within the Basin, and may not be transferred to, treated by or discharged from or to a new or existing wastewater treatment facility located within the Basin, at any volume or rate, except in accordance with an approval in the form of a docket issued by the Commission to the owner or operator of the wastewater treatment facility pursuant to section 3.8 of the Compact or in accordance with a state permit issued pursuant to a duly adopted administrative agreement between the Commission and the host state.

    (c) Alternatives and impact assessment. Any project involving the importation of produced water or CWT wastewater into the Basin shall be subject to the requirement that alternatives involving no importation must be analyzed and the water resource, economic and social impacts of the project evaluated, as described in section 2.30.4 of the Commission's Water Code.

    (d) Compliance with existing rules. In addition to the requirements in this part, all discharges within the Basin of produced water and CWT wastewater as defined in this part must comply with applicable DRBC Water Quality Regulations (incorporated by reference at part 410 of this chapter), state regulations and federal regulations. If a conflict exists among the applicable regulations, the more stringent requirement shall apply to these discharges.

    (e) Treatment facilities. (1) Produced water as defined in this part:

    (i) May not be treated within the Basin except at a centralized waste treatment facility (CWT) as that term is defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR part 437 (to convert it to CWT wastewater); and pursuant to an approval issued in accordance with § 440.5(b).

    (ii) May not be discharged within the basin without treatment at a CWT.

    (2) CWT wastewater as defined in this part may be discharged only:

    (i) Directly by the CWT pursuant to an approval issued in accordance with section 440.5(b); or

    (ii) Indirectly by a CWT to a wastewater treatment facility within the Basin (via sewer, truck or other means) pursuant to an approval issued in accordance with § 440.5(b),

    (iii) Provided that the discharge meets the requirements of § 440.5(f) through (h).

    (f) Treatability studies. The Commission shall not issue any required docket or approval for the treatment of produced water or the discharge of CWT wastewater unless the project sponsor has identified each proposed source of the produced water or CWT wastewater and has submitted to the Commission a treatability study (or studies) prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the state(s) in which the treatment and discharge facilities are located, demonstrating that:

    (1) An analysis, characterization and quantification of all pollutants of concern, as that term is defined in § 440.2, has been conducted and the results submitted to the Commission;

    (2) The acute and chronic toxicity of the waste, measured as Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET), have been evaluated;

    (3) The treatment technologies and applicable design criteria to be used to meet all requirements of § 440.5(g) have been identified;

    (4) The produced water (or CWT wastewater) will not pass through or interfere with the facility's treatment process, and the resulting effluent will meet all applicable limits;

    (5) The classification, treatment and disposal of residuals from the facility, if any, will not be adversely affected; and

    (6) The discharge will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable water quality criteria or stream quality objectives or impair the existing or protected use of the receiving water.

    (g) Additional effluent requirements. Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section, the following requirements shall apply within the Basin to effluent resulting from the treatment of produced water or CWT wastewater. In any instance in which these requirements are deemed to conflict, the more stringent shall apply:

    (1) For total dissolved solids (TDS):

    (i) The effluent shall not exceed background or 500 mg/l, whichever is less,

    (ii) Provided, however, that in waters that drain to Delaware River Water Quality Zones 4 through 6, the resulting effluent shall not exceed 1,000 mg/l, or a concentration established by the Commission that is compatible with designated water uses and stream quality objectives.

    (iii) The Commission will publish guidance on acceptable methods for determining background TDS concentrations.

    (2) For waters for which the protected or designated uses include “public water supplies” or “drinking water”, the effluent shall not exceed the more stringent of EPA's or the host state's

    (i) Primary drinking water standards for inorganic chemicals, organic chemicals (excluding acrylamide and epichlorohydrin) and disinfection byproducts; and

    (ii) Secondary drinking water standards (excluding color, corrosivity, and odor).

    (3) For whole effluent toxicity (WET), the effluent shall not exceed: 0.3 toxic units (acute) and 1.0 toxic units (chronic).

    (4) For pollutants of concern as defined in section 440.2 of this part:

    (i) For waters that drain to Special Protection Waters, the effluent shall not exceed the background concentration of each pollutant in the receiving water.

    (ii) For waters that do not drain to Special Protection Waters:

    (A) If pollutant-specific numeric water quality criteria exist, the effluent concentration for the pollutant shall not exceed the numeric criteria.

    (B) If pollutant-specific numeric water quality criteria do not exist, the effluent shall not exceed the background concentration of the pollutant in the receiving water or cause an exceedance or violation of any existing narrative criteria.

    (C) The Commission will publish guidance on acceptable methods for determining background concentrations for pollutants of concern.

    (5) The Commission may require the discharger to perform such monitoring and reporting as the Commission deems necessary to ensure compliance with established numeric effluent limits and to support the development of additional numeric limits if needed.

    (h) Point of compliance. (1) The effluent limitations are to be met at the point of discharge to basin waters.

    (2) To ensure that all conditions, requirements and standards under this rule are met, the Commission may impose additional monitoring requirements or other conditions on any CWT within the basin that discharges CWT wastewater as defined in this part to another wastewater treatment facility in the basin.

    (3) A mixing zone may be considered for any pollutant for which a mixing zone is permitted in the Delaware River Estuary by the DRBC Water Quality Regulations (incorporated by reference at part 410 of this chapter).

    Dated: January 5, 2018. Pamela M. Bush, Commission Secretary/Assistant General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00344 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6360-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2017-1054] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Chesapeake Bay, between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations for certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters located between Sandy Point, Anne Arundel County, MD and Kent Island, Queen Anne's County, MD, during a paddling event on June 2, 2018. In the case of inclement weather, the paddling event is scheduled for June 3, 2018. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 12, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-1054 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone 410-576-2674, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On October 16, 2017, ABC Events, Inc. of Arnold, MD notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting the Bay Bridge Paddle from 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on June 2, 2018. The third annual kayak and stand up paddle board event for intermediate and elite paddlers includes up to 500 paddlers in two classes operating on two race courses in the Chesapeake Bay. The first course is under and between the north and south bridges that consist of the William P. Lane, Jr. (US-50/301) Memorial Bridges, located between Sandy Point, Anne Arundel County, MD and Kent Island, Queen Anne's County, MD, and the second course is adjacent to Sandy Point State Park at Annapolis, MD. Elite paddlers will operate on a 9-statute mile/14.5-kilometer race course that starts at the east beach area of Sandy Point State Park, proceeds southerly along the shoreline to a point on the course located between north bridge piers 13 and 13A, then easterly along and between the bridges toward the eastern shore at Kent Island and turns around upon reaching a point near Kent Island, then proceeds westerly along and between the bridges toward the western shore, turns upon reaching a point on the course located between north bridge piers 24 and 25, proceeds northerly to the Sandy Point Shoal Lighthouse, and proceeds westerly to a finish at the east beach area of Sandy Point State Park. Intermediate paddlers will operate on a 3.1-statute mile/5-kilometer course that starts at the east beach area of Sandy Point State Park and follows the elite paddlers to the north bridge, then easterly along and between the bridges toward the eastern shore at Kent Island and turns northerly upon reaching a point on the course located between north bridge piers 24 and 25, and proceeds to a finish at the north beach area of Sandy Point State Park. In the case of inclement weather, the event is scheduled from 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on June 3, 2018. Hazards from the paddle race include numerous event participants crossing designated shipping channels and interfering with vessels intending to operate within those channels. The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region has determined that potential hazards associated with the paddle race would be a safety concern for anyone intending to operate within certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, spectators and transiting vessels on certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region proposes to establish special local regulations from 7 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on June 2, 2018, and, if necessary due to inclement weather, from 7 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on June 3, 2018. The regulated area would cover all navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay, adjacent to the shoreline at Sandy Point State Park and between and adjacent to the spans of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridges, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn from the western shoreline at latitude 39°01′05.23″ N., longitude 076°23′47.93″ W.; thence eastward to latitude 39°01′02.08″ N., longitude 076°22′58.38″ W.; thence southward to latitude 38°59′57.02″ N., longitude 076°23′02.79″ W.; thence eastward and parallel and 500 yards north of the north bridge span to eastern shoreline at latitude 38°59′13.70″ N., longitude 076°19′58.40″ W.; and bounded to the south by a line drawn parallel and 500 yards south of the south bridge span that originates from the western shoreline at latitude 39°00′17.08″ N., longitude 076°24′28.36″ W.; thence southward to latitude 38°59′38.36″ N., longitude 076°23′59.67″ W.; thence eastward to latitude 38°59′26.93″ N., longitude 076°23′25.53″ W.; thence eastward to the eastern shoreline at latitude 38°58′40.32″ N., longitude 076°20′10.45″ W, located between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD. The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 8 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. paddle race event. Except for Bay Bridge Paddle participants, no vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and E.O.s related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of E.O. 13771.

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and duration of the regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of the Chesapeake Bay for six hours. The Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel traffic would be able to safely transit the regulated area once the COTP Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it safe to do so.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.

    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area lasting for 6 hours. The category of water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, canoe and sail board racing. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

    PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add § 100.501T05-1054 to read as follows:
    § 100.501T05-1054 Special Local Regulation; Chesapeake Bay, between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD.

    (a) Regulated area. The following location is a regulated area: All navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay, adjacent to the shoreline at Sandy Point State Park and between and adjacent to the spans of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridges, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn from the western shoreline at latitude 39°01′05.23″ N., longitude 076°23′47.93″ W.; thence eastward to latitude 39°01′02.08″ N., longitude 076°22′58.38″ W.; thence southward to latitude 38°59′57.02″ N., longitude 076°23′02.79″ W.; thence eastward and parallel and 500 yards north of the north bridge span to eastern shoreline at latitude 38°59′13.70″ N., longitude 076°19′58.40″ W.; and bounded to the south by a line drawn parallel and 500 yards south of the south bridge span that originates from the western shoreline at latitude 39°00′17.08″ N., longitude 076°24′28.36″ W.; thence southward to latitude 38°59′38.36″ N., longitude 076°23′59.67″ W.; thence eastward to latitude 38°59′26.93″ N., longitude 076°23′25.53″ W.; thence eastward to the eastern shoreline at latitude 38°58′40.32″ N., longitude 076°20′10.45″ W, located between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD. All coordinates reference North American Datum 83 (NAD 1983).

    (b) Definitions—(1) Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.

    (2) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

    (3) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

    (4) Participant means all persons and vessels participating in the Bay Bridge Paddle event under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

    (c) Special local regulations. (1) The COTP or Coast Guard Patrol Commander may forbid and control the movement of all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the regulated area shall immediately comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may terminate the event, or the operation of any support vessel participating in the event, at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.

    (2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, all persons and vessels within the regulated area at the time it is implemented are to depart the regulated area.

    (3) Persons and vessels desiring to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area must first obtain authorization from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Prior to the enforcement period, vessels or persons seeking permission to transit, moor, or anchor within the area may contact the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). During the enforcement period, vessels or persons seeking permission to transit, moor, or anchor within the area may contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) for direction.

    (4) The Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other Federal, State, and local agencies. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1 MHz).

    (5) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event date and times.

    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on June 2, 2018, and, if necessary due to inclement weather, from 7 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on June 3, 2018.

    Dated: January 5, 2018. Lonnie P. Harrison, Jr., Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00420 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0965] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Cape Fear River, NC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Cape Fear River in Brunswick County and New Hanover County, North Carolina. This temporary safety zone is intended to restrict vessel traffic on the Cape Fear River while a vessel transports two new Post-Panamax gantry cranes to the North Carolina State Port in Wilmington, North Carolina. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic on the Cape Fear River to protect mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with transporting the assembled gantry cranes. Entry of vessels or persons into this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) North Carolina or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 12, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0965 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, contact Petty Officer Matthew Tyson, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, Wilmington, NC; telephone: 910-772-2221, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking §  Section U.S.C. United States Code COTP Captain of the Port II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On August 22, 2017, the North Carolina State Port Authority notified the Coast Guard that they will be transporting two pre-assembled Post-Panamax gantry cranes up the Cape Fear River to the North Carolina State Port in Wilmington, North Carolina. The planned transit date is April 1, 2018 with alternate dates of March 29th, 30th, 31st, April 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, 2018. The transit path will be from the Cape Fear River Entrance Buoy, north through the Cape Fear River to the turning basin, and ending at the North Carolina State Port in Wilmington, North Carolina. The COTP North Carolina has determined that potential safety hazards associated with transporting the gantry cranes would be a concern for anyone transiting the Cape Fear River.

    The purpose of this rule is to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters on the Cape Fear River during the transport of the gantry cranes. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone on a portion of the Cape Fear River to be enforced during the transit of a vessel transporting two pre-assembled Post-Panamax gantry cranes up the Cape Fear River on April 1, 2018. The transport is expected to take between five and seven hours. There will be alternate dates of March 29th, 30th, 31st, April 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, 2018 in case severe weather or other conditions prevent the safe transit of the vessel on April 1st. Exact enforcement times will be based on tide schedules and anticipated sea conditions and will be announced by broadcast to mariners at least two days prior to the transit. The safety zone will include all navigable waters of the Cape Fear River from the International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS, 72) Demarcation Line drawn from Oak Island Light House to Bald Head Island Abandon Light House noted on NOAA chart 11537 and proceeding north up the Cape Fear River from shore to shore to the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, a length of approximately 26 miles. The safety zone will be enforced until the vessel transporting the cranes has been safely moored at North Carolina State Port in Wilmington, North Carolina. The duration of this zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters of the Cape Fear River during the transport of the gantry cranes. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port North Carolina or a designated representative. There will be a pre-designated safety vessel ahead of the transport vessel to monitor the flow of traffic and inform mariners that the gantry crane transit is in progress. Vessels that are less than 40 feet in height and will not impede the transport vessel may request permission to pass through the safety zone or remain in place as the transport vessel passes. The Fort Fisher and Bald Head ferries will be able to operate on their normal schedule as long as the scheduled transit will not come within one mile of the transport vessel and they receive permission from the Captain of the Port North Carolina or a designated representative. The strict height restriction of 40 feet is required because portions of the transported cranes extend over the water on both sides of the transport vessel. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the proposed safety zone. Vessel traffic will not be allowed to enter or transit a portion of the Cape Fear River on April 1, 2018 with alternate dates of March 29th, 30th, 31st, April 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, 2018 for approximately five to seven hours. The Coast Guard will issue a Local Notice to Mariners and transmit a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 regarding the safety zone. This portion of the Cape Fear River has been determined to be a high traffic area. This rule allows vessels to request permission to pass through the moving safety zone or remain in place as long as they are under the height restriction of 40 feet.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone on all navigable waters of the Cape Fear River from the International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS, 72) Demarcation Line drawn from Oak Island Light House to Bald Head Island Abandon Light House noted on NOAA chart 11537 and proceeding north up the Cape Fear River from shore to shore to the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, a length of approximately 26 miles. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T05-0965 to read as follows:
    § 165.T05-0965 Safety Zone, Cape Fear River, Brunswick County and New Hanover County, NC.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Cape Fear River from the International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS, 72) Demarcation Line drawn from Oak Island Light House to Bald Head Island Abandon Light House noted on NOAA chart 11537 and proceeding north up the Cape Fear River from shore to shore to the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, in Brunswick County and New Hanover County, NC.

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:

    Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer designated by the Captain of the Port North Carolina (COTP) for the enforcement of the safety zone.

    Captain of the Port means the Commander, Sector North Carolina.

    Participants means persons and vessels involved in support of the gantry crane transport.

    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations governing safety zones in § 165.23 apply to the area described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (2) With the exception of participants, entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP North Carolina or the COTP North Carolina's designated representative. All vessels under 40 feet in height within this safety zone when this section becomes effective may request permission to remain in the zone. All other vessels must depart the zone immediately.

    (3) To request permission to remain in, enter, or transit through the safety zone, contact the COTP North Carolina or the COTP North Carolina's representative through the Coast Guard Sector North Carolina Command Duty Officer, Wilmington, North Carolina, at telephone number 910-343-3882, or on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 MHz) or channel 16 (156.8 MHz).

    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.

    (e) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced during vessel transit on April 1, 2018 or alternatively, March 29th, 30th, 31st, April 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, 2018.

    Dated: December 19, 2017. Bion B. Stewart, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port North Carolina.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00421 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0634; FRL-9972-14—Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Montana; Revisions to East Helena Lead SIP AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the state of Montana on September 11, 2013. The submittal revises the portions of the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) that pertain to the East Helena Lead SIP. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (Act).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before February 12, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0634 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin Leone, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    a. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

    i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    ii. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    II. Background

    The proposed SIP revisions stem from a June 10, 2013, Montana Board of Environmental Review Order (Board Order) removing a stipulated condition in an August 4, 1995 Board Order. The condition limited the allowable concentration of lead in raw feed material at the American Chemet Corporation's East Helena facility. Specifically, American Chemet requested a change to the 1995 Board Order which would eliminate Exhibit A, Section C, Subsection B. This subsection reads:

    “Feed Material into the plant shall have a quarterly average lead content of less than 0.15%, and an average annual lead content of less than 0.10%.”

    All other East Helena Lead SIP provisions, including direct numerical limits on lead emissions from American Chemet Corporation's East Helena facility, would remain unchanged.

    The East Helena Lead SIP includes a “lead in feed” limitation for the American Chemet facility, which was created as part of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) efforts to respond to the EPA's designation of East Helena as a nonattainment area for the 1978 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for airborne lead. The American Chemet East Helena facility produces cuprous oxides, cupric oxides, and fine particle size copper powders. In the 1990's, through informal discussions between DEQ and American Chemet, the parties arrived at restrictions on lead emissions for the East Helena area to meet and maintain compliance with the 1978 lead NAAQS. The principal target for curtailing lead emissions was the American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) facility, which was a lead smelter located adjacent to American Chemet's East Helena facility. In addition to shutting down its operations in 2001, ASARCO demolished its stacks in 2009. After the ASARCO facility shut down in 2001, ambient air monitoring during the following six months showed that East Helena was in compliance with the 1978 lead NAAQS of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m 3).

    The EPA subsequently promulgated a new, more stringent, lead NAAQS standard (0.15 ug/m3); the final rulemaking was published on November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964). In our final 2011 rulemaking (76 FR 72097) to designate areas of the country as attainming or nonattaining for the 2008 lead NAAQS, the EPA noted that the most recent three years of available monitoring data from the East Helena nonattainment area showed no violations of the 2008 standard (See Montana's September 11, 2013 submittal), although the monitors were shut down in December 2001 (roughly six months after the shut down of the large stationary source of lead emissions, ASARCO). Effective December 31, 2011, the entire state of Montana, including the East Helena area, was designated as “Unclassifiable/Attainment” for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. In the rulemaking for the 2011 designation, the EPA reiterated that the 1978 standard would remain in effect for the East Helena area until an implementation plan for the 2008 lead NAAQS was approved by the EPA (76 FR 72099). Accordingly, and as required in 40 CFR 50.12, Montana's nonattainment status for the the 1978 lead NAAQS will apply for East Helena until the state submits, and the EPA approves, an implementation plan providing for attainment and/or maintenance of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. The EPA amended 40 CFR 50.12 to reflect the possibility that the nonattainment status for the old standard could be revoked upon the EPA's approval of a maintenance plan for the new standard (73 FR 67043). The EPA encourages Montana to submit such an implementation plan for East Helena in the near future.

    On December 18, 2009, in response to the DEQ's request for the EPA's guidance concerning modifying the 1995 Board order to eliminate Exhibit A, Section C, Subsection B, the EPA sent a letter dated December 18, 2009 (See docket) to the DEQ that stated:

    “. . . our preliminary view is that we could allow a revision to the Montana State Implementation Plan (SIP) that would eliminate Exhibit A, Section C, Subsection B from the 1995 Board Order if the conditions listed below are met.

    1. DEQ must perform modeling sufficient to demonstrate noninterference with the attainment and maintenance of the lead NAAQS (a demonstration for the new standard will suffice for the old standand). AERMOD is appropriate to use for the modeling. If DEQ meets condition 2 below, DEQ may assume in modeling that ASARCO's stack emissions are zero but will need to input appropriate values for any remaining lead emissions from ASARCO, such as fugitive emissions.

    2. The State must finalize the revocation of ASARCO's permit and provide us with evidence of, and ASARCO's consent to, the revocation. In the alternative, the SIP revision must state that ASARCO has shut down permanently and that ASARCO would need to go through New Source Review permitting in order to resume operations.”

    American Chemet submitted to DEQ a modeling analysis on December 4, 2012 (see docket). The EPA has reviewed the supplied modeling analysis and agrees that the methodology is in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W and the EPA's “Guideline on Air Quality Models.” The AERMOD analysis used the emission limits in the SIP, located in Condition II.A.4.b of the 1995 Board Order, of 0.007 lb/hr and the results of the modeling analysis are valid. The AERMOD modeling analysis shows a concentration of 0.14 ug/m3 (which includes background concentrations); and therefore, East Helena is below the lead NAAQS threshold for the 2008 lead NAAQS standard (0.15 ug/m3). In particular, the modeling shows that operating the facility at the remaining SIP limits does not violate the 2008 lead NAAQS, even including background ambient lead concentrations. The submitted modeling analysis used background concentrations of lead based off of lead monitoring results that were performed during the three quarters immediately after the ASARCO facility ceased operations in April of 2001.

    On December 9, 2009, ASARCO's representative sent a letter to DEQ requesting the revocation of Montana Air Quality Permit (MAQP) #2557. On September 3, 2013, the DEQ sent a letter to the EPA stating that, in a letter dated December 16, 2009, the DEQ notified ASARCO of its intent to revoke MAQP #2557. In accordance with the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 17.8.763, the revocation of MAQP #2557 was final within 15 days of ASARCO's receipt of the letter unless ASARCO requested a hearing before the Board of Environmental Review. ASARCO did not request a hearing; therefore, the revocation of MAQP #2557 became final following the 15-day appeal period. The previously mentioned letters are all available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. In addition, ASARCO's Title V permit expired on April 5, 2007, and DEQ did not receive a renewal application. Any new industrial operations on the former ASARCO site would be required to go through major New Source Review permitting before construction.

    III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the state of Montana's revisions, as submitted on September 11, 2013, to remove Exhibit A, Section C, Subsection B from the August 4, 1995 Board Order. This Board order is found in the Montana SIP under “EPA-approved Source-Specific Requirements.” The final rulemaking approving the 1995 Board Order for adoption into the SIP can be found at 66 FR 32760.

    This revision is in compliance with CAA section 110(l) because it does not change American Chemet's SIP emission limits and modeling has shown that it will not interfere with the 2008 Lead NAAQS. No other criteria pollutant emissions would be impacted by this proposed action. In addition, CAA section 193 does not apply to this revision because the American Chemet limits were approved into the SIP after November 15, 1990. Furthermore, any new industrial construction on the former ASARCO site would be required to go through major New Source Review construction permitting before construction.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing the incorporation by reference of a change to the State of Montana's SIP regarding a 1995 Board Order; this action would eliminate Exhibit A, Section C, Subsection B. This Board order is found in the Montana SIP under “EPA-approved Source-Specific Requirements.” The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

    • is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;

    • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

    • does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: January 2, 2018. Douglas H. Benevento, Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00114 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0061; FRL-9972-29-Region 6] National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to Texas AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has submitted updated regulations for receiving delegation of EPA authority for implementation and enforcement of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources). These regulations apply to certain NESHAP promulgated by the EPA, as amended between April 24, 2013 and August 3, 2016. The delegation of authority under this action does not apply to sources located in Indian Country. The EPA is providing notice proposing to approve the delegation of certain NESHAPs to TCEQ.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before February 12, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0061, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] For additional information on how to submit comments see the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Rick Barrett, (214) 665-7227; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the final rules section of this issue of the Federal Register, the EPA is approving TCEQ's request for delegation of authority to implement and enforce certain NESHAP for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources). TCEQ has adopted certain NESHAP by reference into Texas's state regulations. In addition, the EPA is waiving its notification requirements so sources will only need to send notifications and reports to TCEQ. The EPA is taking direct final action without prior proposal because the EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn, and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting should do so at this time.

    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.

    Dated: January 4, 2018. Wren Stenger, Director, Multimedia Division, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00448 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    83 9 Friday, January 12, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule Committee (Committee) will meet in Washington, DC. Attendees may also listen via webinar and/or conference call. The Committee operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Additional information relating to the Committee, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Committee's website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/planningrule/committee.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held in-person and streamed via webinar/conference call on the following dates and times:

    • Tuesday, January 30, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) • Wednesday, January 31, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST • Thursday, February 1, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EST

    All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meetings prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the USDA Forest Service, International Programs Office, 1 Thomas Circle NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005. For anyone who would like to attend via webinar and/or conference call, please visit http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/planningrule/committee, or contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the USDA Forest Service Washington Office—Yates Building, 201 14th Street SW, Mail Stop 1104, Washington, DC 20250-1104. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Crystal Merica, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 202-205-3562, or by email at [email protected] Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of this meeting is to:

    1. Continue deliberations on formulating advice for the Secretary;

    2. Discuss Committee work group findings;

    3. Hear public comments; and

    4. Conduct administrative tasks.

    This meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral comments of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral comment should submit a request in writing by January 26, 2018, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to

    Crystal Merica, USDA Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination, 201 14th Street SW, Mail Stop 1104, Washington, DC, 20250-1104, or by email at [email protected] The agenda and summary of the meeting will be posted on the Committee's website within 21 days of the meeting. Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case-by-case basis.

    Dated: December 29, 2017. Glenn Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00426 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (Board) will meet in Rapid City, South Dakota. The Board is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the Federal Public Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. Additional information concerning the Board, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Board's website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/blackhills/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 21, 2018, at 1:00 p.m.

    All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Forest Service Center, 8221 Mount Rushmore Road, Rapid City, South Dakota.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Jacobson, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 605-440-1409 or by email at [email protected].

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to provide:

    (1) Information Topic: Black Hills National Forest Staffing;

    (2) Recreation Site Analysis (RSA);

    (3) Over snow use;

    (4) Recreation Site Analysis (RSA) update;

    (5) Black Hills Resilient Landscape Project update; and

    (6) Non-motorized Trails.

    The meeting is open to the public and transcripts, documents and minutes will be made available for public inspection. The U.S. Forest Service will attempt to accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Chairman may allow the public to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by February 12, 2018, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Board may file written statements with the Board's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Scott Jacobson, Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 North Fifth Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 605-673-9208.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: December 8, 2017. Chris French, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00429 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    United States Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Commission Telephonic Business Meeting.

    DATES:

    Friday, January 19, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting to take place by telephone.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Walch, (202) 376-8371, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This business meeting is open to the public by telephone only.

    PARTICIPANT ACCESS INSTRUCTIONS:

    Listen Only, Toll Free: 1-800-479-9001; Conference ID: 6075575. Please dial in 5-10 minutes prior to the start time.

    Meeting Agenda I. Approval of Agenda II. Program Planning • Discussion and Vote on Administrative Instruction on Oral Public Comment Periods • Discussion and Vote on Release of Outline and Transcript of Commission's Briefing on Inequities in Higher Education Funding V. Adjourn Meeting. Dated: January 10, 2018. Brian Walch, Director, Communications and Public Engagement.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00631 Filed 1-10-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and opportunity for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [12/19/2017 through 01/07/2018] Firm name Firm address Date

  • accepted for
  • investigation
  • Product(s) E. Smith Box, Inc 1875 Rockdale Industrial Boulevard NW, Conyers, GA 30012 12/29/2017 The firm manufactures corrugated boxes, point-of-purchase displays, and custom packaging materials. Good Clothing Company, Inc 104 Anawan Street, Suite 5, Fall River, MA 02721 01/04/2018 The firm manufactures apparel for both men and women.

    Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

    Irette Patterson, Program Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00401 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-03-2018] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 40—Cleveland, Ohio; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Swagelok Company (Valve Component Parts); Solon, Willoughby Hills, Highland Heights, and Strongsville, Ohio

    The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 40, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Swagelok Company (Swagelok) located in Solon, Willoughby Hills, Highland Heights, and Strongsville, Ohio. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on December 26, 2017.

    The Swagelok facilities are located within Subzone 40I. The facilities are used for production of industrial fittings, finished valves, pressure reducing valves, and regulators. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Swagelok from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production (estimated at 13 percent of production). On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, Swagelok would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: High pressure reinforced plastic hoses; teflon tubing; plastic tubing with fittings; polytetrafluoroethylene and plastic hoses; plastic and nylon fittings and nuts; plastic and teflon ferrules; rubber hoses with and without fittings; rubber hoses with fittings reinforced or otherwise combined with textile materials; non-alloy steel seamless tubing; stainless steel tubing; welded stainless steel tubing; stainless steel flanges; straight or shaped stainless steel fittings; stainless steel butt-weld fittings; threaded, unthreaded, and welded-ends stainless steel fittings; machined flanges of alloy steel not including stainless; straight or shaped steel fittings; steel butt-welded fittings; steel adapter fittings without threads; brass tubes used in brass valve assemblies; brass fittings used in brass valve assemblies; brass fitting ferrules; nuts and ferrule sets used in brass fittings; nickel-chromium alloy tubing; nickel alloy fittings; aluminum ferrules, nuts, and ferrule kits; stainless steel flexible metal tubing; steel flexible tubing with fittings; pressure reducing valves; hydraulic solenoid valves; check valves; relief valves, and diaphragm valves (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 6.2%). Swagelok would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Plastic caps used for component protection in shipping; teflon O-rings for valve connections; rubber gaskets and O-rings to prevent leakage; rubber gripper pads; rubber grommets; rubber bands used in valve applications; grafoil packing; replacement safety glass for pressure gauge lenses; glass face plates for gauges; forged non-alloy steel bars; carbon steel barstock; forged rods; cold finished steel bars; circular, hot formed or extruded hot rolled stainless steel; cold formed stainless steel bars; circular bars or rods of stainless steel barstock; steel angled shapes and sections to be used in valve bodies; unmachined stainless steel flanges; empty sample cylinders for compressed gases or liquids; self-tapping screws of various sizes for valve assemblies; nuts and bolts; steel screws; threaded hardware for valves; nuts for tube support systems; lock and spring washers; stainless steel washers; cotter pins and retaining rings; steel and stainless steel non-threaded hardware; helical springs; spring kits; disc springs for tube supports; circular or hex brass barstock; square copper alloy barstock to machine fittings; brass tube plugs; brass sleeves; nickel alloy barstock; nickel alloy gaskets; aluminum barstock; lead seals for valves; titanium barstock; steel and stainless steel clamps; steel mountings for valve applications; brackets for valve applications; hydraulic motors to open and close valves; non-linear acting air operators to open and close valves; air operator carbon steel mufflers and filters; air and liquid pumps; filters for liquids and gases; filter elements; cutting dies; drill inserts; cut-off blade bases; grooving insert holders; pigging machines—push-on tool assembly; valve and regulator poppets; linear, ball or radial bearings to be used in pumps; bearing housings for plain shaft bearings to be used in pumps; ball or roller screws for gears; machine clutches used in fitting manufacturing machines; rubber, plastic, and steel O-ring sets; direct current (DC) motors between 37.5 watts and 74.6 watts to open and close valves; DC motors between 750 watts and 14.92 kilowatts to open and close valves; alternating current (AC) electric actuators to open and close valves; multiphase AC motors to open and close valves; power supplies or converters; welding machine weld heads; heater cartridges for regulators; transceivers; optical projectors used in valve assemblies; indicator panels for alarms; power connection and termination kits; limit and proximity switches; crimp terminals; insulated ring terminals; butt connectors; electrical controllers; USB power cables or cords; panel faces for valve assembly controllers; lasers used for valve assemblies; thermometers; flow sensors for measuring and checking pressure; pressure gauges; pressure gauge cable fittings—fill plugs and steam syphons; inspection gauges; and, temperature control instruments (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 15%). The request indicates that the following components are subject to antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) orders if imported from certain countries: Carbon steel barstock; hot rolled stainless steel; stainless steel bars; stainless steel barstock; empty sample cylinders for compressed gases or liquids; bolts with nuts; steel screws; threaded hardware for valves; lock and spring washers; helical springs or kits; disc springs for tube supports; brass tube plugs; brass sleeves; brackets for valve applications; parts for hose crimping machines; pigging machines; push-on tool assemblies; bearing housings for plain shaft bearings to be used in pumps; DC motors between 37.5 watts and 74.6 watts to open and close valves; and, heater cartridges for regulators. The FTZ Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.14(e)) require that merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders, or items which would be otherwise subject to suspension of liquidation under AD/CVD procedures if they entered U.S. customs territory, be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is February 21, 2018.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Christopher Wedderburn at [email protected] or (202) 482-1963.

    Dated: January 8, 2018. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00436 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-28-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone 186—Waterville, Maine; Application for Production Authority; Flemish Master Weavers; Subzone 186A; Invitation for Public Comment on Additional Information

    The FTZ Board is inviting public comment on a new submission by the City of Waterville, Maine, grantee of FTZ 186, containing additional information pertaining to the production application of Flemish Master Weavers (FMW). The application, which was subject to a public comment period through August 7, 2017, requests unrestricted authority for FMW to produce machine-made woven area rugs from foreign-status continuous filament polypropylene yarn within Subzone 186A at the FMW facility in Sanford, Maine. The new submission on which the FTZ Board is now inviting public comment includes additional information concerning the supply of domestically-produced continuous filament polypropylene yarn and additional HTSUS Subheadings to describe that yarn.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is February 12, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to February 26, 2018.

    A copy of the submission will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Diane Finver at [email protected] or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: January 8, 2018. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00437 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-02-2018] Foreign-Trade Zone 49—Newark/Elizabeth, New Jersey; Application for Expansion of Subzone 49C; E.R. Squibb & Sons, LLC; New Brunswick, New Jersey

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, grantee of FTZ 49, requesting the expansion of Subzone 49C for the facility of E.R. Squibb and Sons, LLC, located in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on January 3, 2018.

    The proposed expansion of Subzone 49C will add 0.1258 acres to existing Site 1 (96 acres), located at One Squibb Drive in New Brunswick. No additional authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is February 21, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to March 8, 2018.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at [email protected] or (202) 482-1346.

    Dated: January 8, 2018. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00435 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-02-2018] Foreign-Trade Zone 49—Newark/Elizabeth, New Jersey; Application for Expansion of Subzone 49C; E.R. Squibb & Sons, LLC; New Brunswick, New Jersey

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, grantee of FTZ 49, requesting the expansion of Subzone 49C for the facility of E.R. Squibb and Sons, LLC, located in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on January 3, 2018.

    The proposed expansion of Subzone 49C will add 0.1258 acres to existing Site 1 (96 acres), located at One Squibb Drive in New Brunswick. No additional authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is February 21, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to March 8, 2018.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at [email protected] or (202) 482-1346.

    Dated: January 8, 2018. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00465 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed additions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add a product and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: February 11, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information or to submit comments contact: Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product and service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following product and service are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    Product NSN—Product Name: 6850-01-474-2317—Solvent, Dry Cleaning, Degreasing, 5 Gal Mandatory Source of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind, St. Louis, MO Mandatory for: Broad Government Requirement Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Service Service Type: Janitorial and Related Service Mandatory for: GSA Region 5, FDA Forensic Chemistry Center, 6751 Steger Drive, Cincinnati, OH Mandatory Source of Supply: Portco, Inc., Portsmouth, VA Contracting Activity: GSA, Public Buildings Service, PBS R5 Patricia Briscoe, Deputy Director, Business Operations, Pricing and Information Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00423 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Date added to the Procurement List: February 11, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Deletions

    On 12/8/2017 (82 FR 235), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Products NSNs—Product Names: 7510-00-NIB-1784—Portfolio Pad Holder, with Pad, Custom Logo & Color, 4″ x 6″ 7510-00-NIB-1785—Portfolio Pad Holder, with pad, Custom Logo & Color, 6″ x 9″ Mandatory Source of Supply: Alphapointe, Kansas City, MO Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSNs—Product Names: 7510-01-642-8626—Kit, Maintenance, Remanufactured, Toner Cartridge, Lexmark T620/620N Series Compatible 7510-01-633-7855—Toner Cartridge, Remanufactured, Lexmark E230/E232/E234/E330/E332/E340/E342 Series Compatible 7510-01-633-7853—Toner Cartridge, Remanufactured, Lexmark Optra T620/T622 Series Compatible 7510-01-641-9550—Toner Cartridge, Remanufactured Lexmark Optra T630/T632/T634 Series Compatible 7510-01-560-6576—Remanufactured HP LJ Toner Cartridge—OEM C3909A 7510-01-560-6233—Remanufactured HP LJ Toner Cartridge—OEM C7115X Mandatory Source of Supply: TRI Industries NFP, Vernon Hills, IL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Patricia Briscoe, Deputy Director, Business Operations, Pricing and Information Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00422 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Revise Collection Numbers 3038-0052 and 3038-0074, Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets, and Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed revision of two collections of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment. This notice solicits comments, as described below, on the proposed Information Collection Requests (“ICR”) titled: OMB Control Number 3038-0074 and Part 38, Relating to Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets; and OMB Control Number 3038-0052 and Part 37, Relating to Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities. This notice also solicits comments on the collection of information mandated by the Commission regulation on Contents of Notice of Disciplinary or Access Denial Action. The collection of information burden associated with that regulation belongs to OMB Control Nos. 3038-0052 and 3038-0074.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before March 13, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Nos. 3038-0052 and 3038-0074 by any of the following methods:

    CFTC website: https://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Comments Online process on the website.

    Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail, above.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Please submit your comments using only one method.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Steinberg, Associate Director, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5102; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed amendments to the collections of information listed below. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Title: Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets (OMB Control No. 3038-0052), and Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities (OMB Control No. 3038-0074). This is a request for an extension of currently approved information collections.

    Abstract: The regulations governing designated contract markets (“DCMs”) were adopted pursuant to the requirements of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (“CFMA”).1 Part 38 of the Commission's regulations governs the activities of DCMs. The information collected pursuant to part 38 is necessary for the Commission to evaluate whether entities operating as, or applying to become DCMs, comply with the part 38 requirements including 23 core principles.

    1 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.

    In June 2012, the Commission implemented core principles and other requirements for DCMs (“DCM Final Rules”).2 The Commission stated in the DCM Final Rules that 18 DCMs were registered with the Commission.3 However, since publication of the DCM Final Rules, the number of DCMs registered with the Commission has decreased from 18 to 15. Accordingly, the Commission is revising the below burden statement from the DCM Final Rules to account for the decrease in the number of registered DCMs.

    2 77 FR 36612 (June 19, 2012).

    3Id. at 36663.

    Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) added new section 5h to the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) to impose requirements concerning the registration and operation of swap execution facilities (“SEFs”), which the Commission has incorporated in part 37 of its regulations. These information collections are needed for the Commission to ensure that SEFs comply with these requirements. Among other requirements, part 37 of the Commission's regulations imposes SEF registration requirements for a trading platform or system, obligates SEFs to provide transaction confirmations to swap counterparties, and requires SEFs to comply with 15 core principles.

    In September 2016, the Commission published a 30-Day Notice of Intent to Renew Collection 3038-0074 (30-Day Renewal Notice) and stated that 23 SEFs were registered with the Commission.4 However, since publication of the 30-Day Renewal Notice, the Commission has granted permanent registration to two additional SEFs, for a total of 25 registered SEFs. Therefore, the Commission is revising the below burden statement from the 30-Day Renewal Notice to account for the increase in the number of registered SEFs.

    4 81 FR 65630 (Sept. 23, 2016).

    In a separate document published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the Commission adopted regulation 9.11(b)(3)(ii) requiring a DCM or SEF (collectively, “exchange”) to include two additional elements in the disciplinary or access denial notice action provided to the National Futures Association. First, an exchange must include the type of product (as applicable) involved in the adverse action.5 Requiring an exchange to provide this information in the disciplinary or access denial notice will provide the Commission, market participants, the public, and other exchanges with greater transparency concerning where market abuses originate and whether the abuses are concentrated among certain product types. Second, an exchange must indicate in its notice of disciplinary or access denial actions whether the violation underlying the notice resulted in financial harm to any customers. This requirement codifies the clarification contained in an advisory previously issued by the Commission (“Part 9 Advisory”).6 The Commission believes that the inclusion of customer harm is essential because it cannot effectively perform its regulatory and oversight functions without knowledge of those instances in which brokers violate their fiduciary duty to customers by taking advantage of customer orders and engaging in fraudulent activity. The collections of information are mandatory.

    5 For example, a product trading on a designated contract market might be specified as a July 2016 Eurodollar future; while a product trading on a swap execution facility may be a CDX North American High Yield Series 26 5 year.

    6 The Part 9 Advisory permitted an exchange to file disciplinary or access denial notices with the Commission or the National Futures Association. 64 FR 39915 (July 23, 1999).

    With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

    • Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    • The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.7

    7 17 CFR 145.9.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the ICR will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Burden Statement: The Commission believes that the additional burden for an exchange to add the two additional elements in the contents of the disciplinary or access denial notice is de minimis.8 Accordingly, the Commission is maintaining its current estimate of the burden for both collections as result of these reporting requirements. However, the Commission is amending its estimates for the collections to account for the change in the number of DCMs and SEFs currently registered with the Commission. The current respondent burden for these collections are estimated to be as follows:

    8 The Commission stated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the burden associated with Commission regulation 9.11(b)(3)(ii) requiring an exchange to specify the product involved in the disciplinary or access denial action would be de minimis. 82 FR 7745 (Jan. 23, 2017). The Commission did not receive any comments regarding this determination. The Commission estimates that it will take an exchange just a few seconds to add the product involved in the adverse action and whether the violation underlying the notice resulted in financial harm to any customers.

    • OMB Control No. 3038-0052 (Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets).

    Number of Respondents: 15.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours per Respondent: 490.5.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours on Respondents: 7,357.5.

    Frequency of Collection: As applicable.

    • OMB Control No. 3038-0074 (Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities).

    Number of Respondents: 25.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours per Respondent: 1,000.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours on Respondents: 25,000.

    Frequency of Collection: As applicable.

    The regulations require no new startup or operations and maintenance costs.

    (Authority 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    Dated: January 9, 2018. Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00469 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Record of Decision for the F-35A Operational Beddown—Pacific, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska AGENCY:

    Pacific Air Forces, Department of the Air Force.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of a record of decision.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Air Force signed the Record of Decision for the F-35A Operational Beddown—Pacific, for the Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement on December 19, 2017. The Record of Decision reflects the Air Force decision to implement the three Proposed Action Alternatives: provide additional stormwater runoff control; develop equipment and material laydown areas; and provide additional heat, water, and power to the South Loop.

    The decision was based on matters discussed in the F-35A Operational Beddown—Pacific, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, contributions from the public and regulatory agencies, and other relevant factors. The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was made available to the public on October 6, 2017 through a Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register (82 FR 46808) with a 30-day wait period that ended on November 6, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Hamid Kamalpour, AFCEC/CZN, 2261 Hughes Ave, Ste 155, JBSA Lackland, TX 78236, ph: 210-925-2738.

    Authority: This Notice of Availability is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR part 1506.6) implementing the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and the Air Force's Environmental Impact Analysis Process (32 CFR parts 989.21(b) and 989.24(b)(7)).

    Anh Trinh, Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00458 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-539-001.

    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Jan 2018 Membership Filing (Updated) to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 1/5/18.

    Accession Number: 20180105-5224.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-613-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SMEPA NITSA Amendment Filing (adding 55 Delivery Points, etc.) to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/5/18.

    Accession Number: 20180105-5220.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-614-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to OATT, Sch. 12—Appendix A re: RTEP Projects Approved Dec 2017 to be effective 4/5/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/5/18.

    Accession Number: 20180105-5222.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-615-000.

    Applicants: Harvest Wind Energy, LLC.

    Description: Petition for Waiver of Tariff Requirements and Request for Expedited Review of Harvest Wind Energy, LLC.

    Filed Date: 1/5/18.

    Accession Number: 20180105-5237.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-616-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-01-08_SA 3082 Saratoga Wind-SMMPA GIA (J614) to be effective 12/21/2017.

    Filed Date: 1/8/18.

    Accession Number: 20180108-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-617-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: OATT—Cancel Historic Att O-PSCo records to be effective 4/16/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/8/18.

    Accession Number: 20180108-5100.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-618-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Black Hills NITSA Rev 3 to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/8/18.

    Accession Number: 20180108-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-619-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Rev. to Tariff Related to Competitive Auctions with Sponsored Policy Resources to be effective 3/9/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/8/18.

    Accession Number: 20180108-5125.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: January 8, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00414 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL 9972-91-Region 2] Proposed CERCLA Cost Recovery Settlement for Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, In or About Essex and Hudson Counties, New Jersey AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Region 2, of a proposed cost recovery settlement agreement pursuant to CERCLA, between the EPA and 15 settling parties (“Settling Parties”) regarding Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site (“Site”), located in or about Essex and Hudson Counties, New Jersey. Pursuant to the proposed cost recovery settlement agreement, each Settling Party shall pay to EPA $280,600.00 to resolve the Settling Party's civil liability under sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, related to Operable Unit Two of the Site.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before February 12, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The proposed settlement agreement is available for public inspection at EPA's Region 2 offices. To request a copy of the proposed settlement agreement, please contact the EPA employee identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Juan M. Fajardo, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, 290 Broadway—17th Floor, New York, NY 10007. Email: [email protected] Telephone: 212-637-3132.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For 30 days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments concerning the proposed cost recovery settlement agreement. Comments to the proposed settlement agreement should reference Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, Index No. CERCLA-02-2017-2023. EPA will consider all comments received during the 30-day public comment period and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement agreement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed settlement agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to comments will be available for public inspection at EPA's Region 2 offices located at 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866.

    Dated: November 21, 2017. Walter Mugdan, Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00471 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9037-1] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 01/01/2018 Through 01/05/2018 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: http://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/action/eia/search.

    EIS No. 20180000, Final, USDA, ID, Winschell Dugway Motorized Trail Project, Review Period Ends: 02/26/2018, Contact: Jessica Taylor 208-557-5837. Dated: January 9, 2018. Kelly Knight, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00450 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0149] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 13, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0149.

    Title: Part 63, Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84.

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 58 respondents; 58 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 6 hours per response.

    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement and third-party disclosure requirements.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 214 and 402 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 348 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Information filed in section 214 applications has generally been non-confidential. Requests from parties seeking confidential treatment are considered by Commission staff pursuant to 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a revision to a currently approved collection. Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, requires that a carrier first obtain FCC authorization either to (1) construct, operate, or engage in transmission over a line of communications, or (2) discontinue, reduce or impair service over a line of communications. Part 63 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) implements Section 214. Part 63 also implements provisions of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 pertaining to video which was approved under this OMB Control Number 3060-0149. In 2009, the Commission modified Part 63 to extend to providers of interconnected Voice of internet Protocol (VoIP) service the discontinuance obligations that apply to domestic non-dominant telecommunications carriers under Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. In 2014, the Commission adopted improved administrative filing procedures for domestic transfers of control, domestic discontinuances and notices of network changes, and among other adjustments, modified Part 63 to require electronic filing for applications for authorization to discontinue, reduce, or impair service under section 214(a) of the Act. In July 2016, the Commission revised certain section 214(a) discontinuance procedures. To reduce burdens on carriers, the Commission revised its rules to: (1) Allow carriers to provide notice via email or other alternative methods to offer additional options to customers, and (2) provide for streamlined treatment of applications to discontinue services for which the carrier has had no existing customers or reasonable requests for service during the previous 180 days. It also addressed a gap in the Commission's rules by making a competitive LEC's application for discontinuance deemed granted on the effective date of any copper retirement that made the discontinuance unavoidable. The Commission further concluded that applicants must provide notice of discontinuance applications to federally-recognized Tribal Nations. In Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84, Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 17-154 (rel. Nov. 29, 2017) (Wireline Infrastructure Order), the Commission, among other things, reduced the public comment and auto-grant periods for applications that grandfather low speed legacy services and applications to discontinue previously grandfathered legacy data services. The Commission also held that if a carrier files an application to discontinue, reduce, or impair a legacy voice or data service below 1.544 Mbps for which it has had no customers and no request for service for at least a 30-day period immediately preceding submission of the application, that application will be automatically granted on the 15th day after its filing with the Commission, absent Commission notice to the contrary. The Commission will use the information collected under these revisions to 47 CFR Section 63 to determine if affected respondents are in compliance with its rules and the requirements of section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00453 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0678] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 13, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0678.

    Title: Part 25 of the Federal Communications Commission's Rules: Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Commercial Earth Stations and Space Stations.

    Form Nos.: FCC Form 312; Schedule A; Schedule B; Schedule S; FCC Form 312-EZ; FCC Form 312-R.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents: 5,036 respondents; 5,094 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-80 hours per response.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, one time, and annual reporting requirements; third-party disclosure requirement; recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721.

    Total Annual Burden: 35,622 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $12,411,120.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general, there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information. Certain information collected regarding international coordination of satellite systems is not routinely available for public inspection pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and 47 CFR 0.457(d)(vii).

    Needs and Uses: On September 27, 2017, the Commission released a Report and Order, FCC 17-122, titled, “Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning Non-Geostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and Related Matters.” In this Report and Order, the Commission updated and streamlined its rules governing satellite constellations that operate in the fixed-satellite service. Many of the amendments are substantive changes intended to give licensees greater operational flexibility. At the same time, however, many more applications for non-geostationary, fixed-satellite service systems have been filed, increasing the overall information collection burden.

    The information collection requirements in this collection are needed to determine the technical, legal, and other qualifications of applicants and licensees to operate a radio station and to determine whether grant of an authorization serves the public interest, convenience and necessity. Without such information, the Commission could not determine whether to permit respondents to provide communications services in the United States. Therefore, the Commission would not be able to fulfill its statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the obligations imposed on parties to the World Trade Organization Basic Telecom Agreement.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00452 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0991] Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before February 12, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0991.

    Title: AM Measurement Data.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,800 respondents; 3,135 responses.

    Estimated Hours per Response: 0.50-25 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, Third party disclosure requirement, On occasion reporting requirement.

    Total Annual Burden: 20,200 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $1,131,500.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 151, 152, 154(i), 303, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality treatment with this collection of information.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: The Commission is revising this information collection to reflect the September 22, 2017, adoption of the Third Report and Order in MB Docket No. 13-249, FCC 17-119, In the Matter of Revitalization of AM Radio Service (AMR Third R&O). Specifically, the AMR Third R&O removed certain requirements and associated burdens contained in 47 CFR 73.151, 73.154, and 73.155. To the extent the revisions affect reporting or record-keeping requirements, they reduce those burdens for AM broadcasters operating with directional antenna arrays. The Commission is seeking approval for the revised information collection requirements contained under this collection from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    In the 2015 AM revitalization proceeding, the FCC proposed streamlining certain technical requirements to assist AM broadcasters in providing radio service to consumers. For example, many AM stations must directionalize their signals during some or all of the broadcast day in order to avoid interference with other AM stations. Maintaining a directional signal pattern can be technically complex, time-consuming, and expensive. Such stations are subject to a variety of rules requiring signal strength measurements and other engineering analyses to ensure compliance with their authorizations.

    In the AMR Third R&O, the FCC eliminated, clarified, or eased several of the rules governing AM stations using directional antenna arrays, which comprise almost 40 percent of all AM stations. First, the FCC revises 47 CFR 73.154(a) to relax the rule on submission of partial proofs of performance of directional AM antenna arrays by eliminating the requirement to take measurements on non-monitored radials adjacent to monitored radials. Next, the FCC modified several rules pertaining to AM stations that use Method of Moments (MoM) models of directional array performance. MoM modeling allows broadcasters to verify antenna system performance through computer modeling, as opposed to sending engineers in the field to take field strength measurements. Thus, a proof using a MoM model is less expensive than taking field strength measurements of an AM station's directional pattern. Specifically, the FCC: (1) Revised 47 CFR 73.151(c)(1)(ix) to eliminate the requirement of obtaining a registered surveyor's certification, provided that no new towers are being added to an existing AM array; (2) added 47 CFR 73.151(c)(1)(x) to extend the exemption (of having to file a new proof with the FCC) to any AM tower modification that does not affect the modeled values used in the previously submitted license proof; (3) revised 47 CFR 73.151(c)(3) to retain the current requirement for submission of reference field strength measurements in the initial license application, but eliminated the requirement to submit additional reference field strength measurements in subsequent license applications; and (4) revised 47 CFR 73.155 to eliminate the requirement for biennial recertification of the performance of a directional pattern licensed pursuant to a MoM proof, except when system components have been repaired or replaced.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00455 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 8, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Old Line Bancshares, Inc., Bowie, Maryland; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Bay Bancorp, Inc., Columbia, Maryland, and thereby indirectly acquire Bay Bank, FSB, Columbia, Maryland, and thereby engage in operating a savings association, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 9, 2018. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00433 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request

    Proposed Projects:

    Title: National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System.

    OMB No.: 0970-0424.

    Description: The Administration on Children, Youth and Families in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) established the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) to respond to the 1988 and 1992 amendments (Pub. L. 100-294 and Pub. L. 102-295) to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.), which called for the creation of a coordinated national data collection and analysis program, both universal and case specific in scope, to examine standardized data on false, unfounded, or unsubstantiated reports.

    In 1996, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act was amended by Public Law 104-235 to require that any state receiving the Basic State Grant work with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide specific data on child maltreatment, to the extent practicable. These provisions were retained and expanded upon in the 2010 reauthorization of CAPTA (Pub. L. 111-320). Item (17) below was enacted with the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-22). The law goes into effect in 2017 and it is anticipated that states will begin reporting with FFY 2018 data. Item (18) below was enacted with the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA) (Pub. L. 114-198). The law goes into effect in 2017 and it is anticipated that states will begin reporting with FFY 2018 data. Each state to which a grant is made under this section shall annually work with the Secretary to provide, to the maximum extent practicable, a report that includes the following:

    1. The number of children who were reported to the state during the year as victims of child abuse or neglect.

    2. Of the number of children described in paragraph (1), the number with respect to whom such reports were—

    A. substantiated;

    B. unsubstantiated; or

    C. determined to be false.

    3. Of the number of children described in paragraph (2)—

    A. the number that did not receive services during the year under the state program funded under this section or an equivalent state program;

    B. the number that received services during the year under the state program funded under this section or an equivalent state program; and

    C. the number that were removed from their families during the year by disposition of the case.

    4. The number of families that received preventive services, including use of differential response, from the state during the year.

    5. The number of deaths in the state during the year resulting from child abuse or neglect.

    6. Of the number of children described in paragraph (5), the number of such children who were in foster care.

    7.

    A. The number of child protective service personnel responsible for the—

    i. intake of reports filed in the previous year;

    ii. screening of such reports;

    iii. assessment of such reports; and

    iv. investigation of such reports.

    B. The average caseload for the workers described in subparagraph (A).

    8. The agency response time with respect to each such report with respect to initial investigation of reports of child abuse or neglect.

    9. The response time with respect to the provision of services to families and children where an allegation of child abuse or neglect has been made.

    10. For child protective service personnel responsible for intake, screening, assessment, and investigation of child abuse and neglect reports in the state—

    A. information on the education, qualifications, and training requirements established by the state for child protective service professionals, including for entry and advancement in the profession, including advancement to supervisory positions;

    B. data of the education, qualifications, and training of such personnel;

    C. demographic information of the child protective service personnel; and

    D. information on caseload or workload requirements for such personnel, including requirements for average number and maximum number of cases per child protective service worker and supervisor.

    11. The number of children reunited with their families or receiving family preservation services that, within five years, result in subsequent substantiated reports of child abuse or neglect, including the death of the child.

    12. The number of children for whom individuals were appointed by the court to represent the best interests of such children and the average number of out of court contacts between such individuals and children.

    13. The annual report containing the summary of activities of the citizen review panels of the state required by subsection (c)(6).

    14. The number of children under the care of the state child protection system who are transferred into the custody of the state juvenile justice system.

    15. The number of children referred to a child protective services system under subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii).

    16. The number of children determined to be eligible for referral, and the number of children referred, under subsection (b)(2)(B)(xxi), to agencies providing early intervention services under part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.).

    17. The number of children determined to be victims described in subsection (b)(2)(B)(xxiv).

    18. The number of infants—

    (A) identified under subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii);

    (B) for whom a plan of safe care was developed under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii); and

    (C) for whom a referral was made for appropriate services, including services for the affected family or caregiver, under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii).

    The Children's Bureau proposes to continue collecting the NCANDS data through the two files of the Detailed Case Data Component, the Child File (the case-level component of NCANDS) and the Agency File (additional aggregate data, which cannot be collected at the case level). Technical assistance will be provided so that all states may provide the Child File and Agency File data to NCANDS.

    The reauthorization of CAPTA, subsection (b)(2)(B)(xxiv), specifies for “requiring identification and assessment of all reports involving children known or suspected to be victims of sex trafficking (as defined in section 103(10) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102 (10)); and S. 178-38.” To comply with the new reporting requirements for item 17, NCANDS will use a new field in the Child File.

    The Children's Bureau proposes to modify the Child File by modifying the maltreatment fields.

    • Add a new maltreatment type code, 7=sex trafficked, to the existing Fields 26, 28, 30, 32 (Maltreatment-1 Type, Maltreatment-2 Type, Maltreatment-3 Type, Maltreatment-4 Type).

    The reauthorization of CAPTA, subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii), specifies collecting the number of (A) screened-in and screened-out referrals from healthcare providers involved in the delivery or care of infants and who referred such infants born with and identified as being affected by substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure, or a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder; (B) of those screened-in, for whom a plan of safe care was developed, under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii); and (C) of those screened-in, for whom a referral was made for appropriate services, including services for the affected family or caregiver, under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii). To comply with the new reporting requirements for item 18, NCANDS will use a combination of existing fields in the Child File and a new field in the Agency File.

    The Children's Bureau proposes to modify the Agency File by adding 1 new field, under Section 2, Referrals and Reports.

    • 2.5. Number of screened-out referrals from healthcare providers involved in the delivery or care of infants and who referred such infants born with and identified as being affected by substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure, or a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.

    The Children's Bureau proposes to modify the Child File by adding two new fields.

    • Field 151, Has A Safe Care Plan: The Safe Care Plan field will establish a flag as to whether a child has a safe care plan.

    • Field 152, Referral to CARA-Related Services: The Referral to CARA-related Services field will establish a flag as to whether a referral was made for appropriate services, including services for the affected family or caregiver.

    Respondents: State governments, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Detailed Case Data Component (Child File and Agency File) 52 1 149 7,717 Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours 7,717

    Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment:

    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00432 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-D-5974] Determining Whether To Submit an Abbreviated New Drug Application or 505(b)(2) Application; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability; Reopening of the Comment Period AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; reopening of the comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is reopening the comment period for the notice of availability, published in the Federal Register of October 13, 2017. In that document, FDA requested comments on the draft guidance for industry entitled “Determining Whether to Submit an ANDA or 505(b)(2) Application.” The Agency is taking this action in response to a request for an extension to allow interested persons additional time to submit comments.

    DATES:

    FDA is reopening the comment period on the notice of availability published October 13, 2017 (82 FR 47749). Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by February 12, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2017-D-5974 for “Determining Whether to Submit an ANDA or 505(b)(2) Application; Draft Guidance for Industry.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Giaquinto Friedman, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1670, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7930.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In the Federal Register of October 13, 2017, FDA published a notice of availability with a 60-day comment period to request comments on the draft guidance for industry entitled “Determining Whether to Submit an ANDA or 505(b)(2) Application.”

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on factors for applicants to consider when determining which one of the abbreviated approval pathways under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is appropriate for the submission of a marketing application to FDA. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    The Agency has received a request for a 30-day extension of the comment period for the draft guidance. The request conveyed concern that the requestor did not have sufficient time to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to the draft guidance.

    FDA has considered the request and is reopening the comment period for the draft guidance for 30 days, until February 12, 2018. The Agency believes that a 30-day reopening of the comment period allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments to ensure that the Agency can consider the comments on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: January 8, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00405 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-D-6380] Clarification of Orphan Designation of Drugs and Biologics for Pediatric Subpopulations of Common Diseases; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is extending the comment period for the notice of availability that appeared in the Federal Register of December 20, 2017. In the notice of availability, FDA requested comments on the draft guidance for industry entitled “Clarification of Orphan Designation of Drugs and Biologics for Pediatric Subpopulations of Common Diseases.” The Agency is taking this action in response to public interest in the draft guidance and to allow interested persons additional time to submit comments.

    DATES:

    FDA is extending the comment period on the notice of availability published December 20, 2017 (82 FR 60402). Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by February 18, 2018, to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2017-D-6380 for “Clarification of Orphan Designation of Drugs and Biologics for Pediatric Subpopulations of Common Diseases.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Aaron Friedman, Office of Orphan Products Development, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5295, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-8660.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Federal Register of December 20, 2017, FDA published a notice of availability with a 30-day comment period to request comments on the draft guidance for industry entitled “Clarification of Orphan Designation of Drugs and Biologics for Pediatric Subpopulations of Common Diseases.”

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on orphan designation of drugs and biologics for pediatric subpopulations of common diseases. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This draft guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    Based on public interest in the draft guidance, FDA is extending the comment period for the notice of availability for 30 days, until February 28, 2018. The Agency believes that a 30-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying guidance on these important issues.

    Dated: January 8, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00418 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2016-E-2516 and FDA-2016-E-2514] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; PROACT ADJUSTABLE CONTINENCE THERAPY FOR MEN AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for PROACT ADJUSTABLE CONTINENCE THERAPY FOR MEN and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by March 13, 2018. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by July 11, 2018. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before March 13, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of March 13, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket Nos. FDA-2016-E-2516 and FDA-2016-E-2514 for “Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; PROACT ADJUSTABLE CONTINENCE THERAPY FOR MEN.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with § 10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the medical device PROACT ADJUSTABLE CONTINENCE THERAPY FOR MEN. PROACT ADJUSTABLE CONTINENCE THERAPY FOR MEN is indicated for the treatment of adult men who have stress incontinence arising from intrinsic sphincter deficiency of at least 12 months duration following radical prostatectomy or transurethral resection of the prostate and who have failed to respond adequately to conservative therapy. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for PROACT ADJUSTABLE CONTINENCE THERAPY FOR MEN (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,014,606 and 7,828,716) from Uromedica, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated November 10, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of PROACT ADJUSTABLE CONTINENCE THERAPY FOR MEN represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for PROACT ADJUSTABLE CONTINENCE THERAPY FOR MEN is 3,892 days. Of this time, 3,179 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 713 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) involving this device became effective: March 31, 2005. The applicant claims that the investigational device exemption (IDE) required under section 520(g) of the FD&C Act for human tests to begin became effective on August 29, 2005. However, FDA records indicate that the IDE was determined substantially complete for clinical studies to have begun on March 31, 2005, which represents the IDE effective date.

    2. The date an application was initially submitted with respect to the device under section 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e): December 12, 2013. The applicant claims June 19, 2013, as the date the premarket approval application (PMA) for PROACT ADJUSTABLE CONTINENCE THERAPY FOR MEN (PMA 130018) was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that the PMA as submitted was not administratively complete for the Agency to undertake a substantive review. FDA did not file this application and notified the applicant of this fact by letter dated September 13, 2013. The complete PMA was then submitted on December 12, 2013, which is considered to be the initially submitted date.

    3. The date the application was approved: November 24, 2015. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that PMA 130018 was approved on November 24, 2015.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,827 days of patent term extension.

    III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: must be timely (see DATES), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: January 8, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00404 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, Digital Markers for Marijuana Intoxication (1218).

    Date: January 30, 2018.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Julia Berzhanskaya, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Policy and Review, Division of Extramural Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 4234, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-5840, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 9, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00445 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Fogarty International Center; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Fogarty International Center Advisory Board.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Fogarty International Center Advisory Board.

    Date: February 12-13, 2018.

    Place: National Institutes of Health Lawton L. Chiles International House (Stone House), Building 16, Conference Room, 16 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed Session: February 12, 2018, 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Second level review of grant applications.

    Date: February 13, 2018.

    Place: National Institutes of Health. Lawton L. Chiles International House (Stone House), Building 16, Conference Room, 16 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Open Session: February 13, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Update and discussion of current and planned FIC activities.

    Contact Person: Kristen Weymouth, Executive Secretary, Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, Room B2C02, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-1415, [email protected].

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://www.fic.nih.gov/About/Advisory/Pages/default.aspx, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.106, Minority International Research Training Grant in the Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences; 93.154, Special International Postdoctoral Research Program in Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome; 93.168, International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups Program; 93.934, Fogarty International Research Collaboration Award; 93.989, Senior International Fellowship Awards Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: January 9, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00440 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, Development of Portable Neuromodulatory Devices for the Treatment of Substance Use Disorders (8941).

    Date: January 17, 2018.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Julia Berzhanskaya, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Policy and Review, Division of Extramural Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 4234, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-5840, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 9, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00444 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel PHS 2018—Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program Contract Solicitation NO1.

    Date: February 5, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: James T. Snyder, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities/Room 3G31B, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane MSC 9823, Rockville, MD 20892, (240) 669-5060, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 9, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00442 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel NIAID Peer Review Meeting.

    Date: February 9, 2018.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Paul A. Amstad, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G41, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 240-669-5067, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 9, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00441 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Advisory Council.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Advisory Council.

    Date: February 7, 2018.

    Open: 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To discuss program policies and issues.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Room 6C6, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Room 6C6, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Melinda Nelson, Acting Director, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Grants Management Branch, 45 Center Drive, Natcher Building, Room 5A49, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-3535, [email protected].

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 9, 2018. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00443 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Population Sciences and Epidemiology Integrated Review Group; Infectious Diseases, Reproductive Health, Asthma and Pulmonary Conditions Study Section.

    Date: February 5-6, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Ritz-Carlton Hotel, 1700 Tysons Boulevard, McLean, VA 22102.

    Contact Person: Lisa Steele, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3139, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 257-2638, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Infectious, Reproductive, Asthma and Pulmonary Conditions.

    Date: February 6, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Ritz-Carlton Hotel, 1700 Tysons Boulevard, McLean, VA 22102.

    Contact Person: Delia Olufokunbi Sam, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3158, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0684, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Interdisciplinary Molecular Sciences and Training Integrated Review Group; Enabling Bioanalytical and Imaging Technologies Study Section.

    Date: February 8-9, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hotel Palomar, 2121 P Street NW, Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Kenneth Ryan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3218, MSC 7717, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0229, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Oncology 1-Basic Translational Integrated Review Group; Cancer Etiology Study Section.

    Date: February 8-9, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Alexandria Old Town, 1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

    Contact Person: Ola Mae Zack Howard, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Dr. Room 4192, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-4467, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Genes, Genomes, and Genetics Integrated Review Group; Prokaryotic Cell and Molecular Biology Study Section.

    Date: February 8-9, 2018.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Dominique Lorang-Leins, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5108, MSC 7766, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301.326.9721, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Hypertension and Microcirculation.

    Date: February 8, 2018.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Orlando East UCF, 1959 N. Alafaya Trail, Orlando, FL 32822 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Katherine M. Malinda, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4140, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0912, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Vascular and Hematology Integrated Review Group; Vascular Cell and Molecular Biology Study Section.

    Date: February 12-13, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Sheraton Delfina Santa Monica Hotel, 530 West Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90405.

    Contact Person: Larry Pinkus, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4132, MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1214, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 9, 2018. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00439 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0095] Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Notice of Appeal or Motion AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information or new collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e. the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments. USCIS previously published a 60-day Federal Register Notice; after this publication, additional edits were made and USCIS is providing this Notice to allow for comment on those changes.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 13, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0095 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0027. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at http://www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2008-0027;

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2008-0027 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Notice of Appeal or Motion.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-290B; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The form serves the purpose of standardizing requests for motions and appeals and ensures that the basic information required to adjudicate appeals and motions is provided by applicants and petitioners, or their attorneys or representatives. USCIS uses the data collected on Form I-290B to determine whether an applicant or petitioner is eligible to file an appeal or motion, whether the requirements of an appeal or motion have been met, and whether the applicant or petitioner is eligible for the requested immigration benefit. Form I-290B can also be filed with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by schools appealing decisions on Form I-17 filings for certification to ICE's Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP).

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-290B is 24,878 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.5 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 37,317 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $6,188,403.

    Dated: January 5, 2018. Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00446 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary [16XD4523WK,DS61200000,DWK000000.000000,DP61201GS000116] U.S. Coral Reef Task Force; Public Meeting and Public Comment AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Department of the Interior, announce a public meeting of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force and a request for written comments. This meeting, the 39th biannual meeting of the task force, provides a forum for coordinated planning and action among Federal agencies, State and territorial governments, and nongovernmental partners.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, February 22, 2018, from 08:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Submit advance public comments by January 29, 2018. Submit requests for copies of comments given at the meeting by March 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting will be held at the Department of Interior, Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.

    Submit advance public comments or requests for copies of comments given at the meeting to Liza Johnson, U.S. Coral Reef Task Force Steering Committee Co-Chair, U.S. Department of the Interior, MS-3530-MIB, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240; or via email to [email protected]; or fax to (202) 208-4867.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Liza Johnson, U.S. Coral Reef Task Force Steering Committee Co-Chair, U.S. Department of the Interior, MS-3530-MIB, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240 (phone: 202-208-1378; fax: 202-208-4867; email: [email protected]); or visit the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force website at www.coralreef.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Established by Presidential Executive Order 13089 in 1998, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force has a mission to lead, coordinate, and strengthen U.S. government actions to better preserve and protect coral reef ecosystems. The Departments of Commerce and the Interior co-chair the Task Force, whose members include leaders of 12 Federal agencies, 2 U.S. States, 5 U.S. territories, and 3 freely associated States. For more information about the meetings, draft agendas, and how to register, go to www.coralreef.gov. A written summary of the meeting will be posted on the website after the meeting.

    Registration To Attend the Meeting

    Attendees can register online before the start of the meeting, or on site at the registration desk. Registration details will be announced on the task force website at www.coralreef.gov.

    Public Comments

    Comments may address the meeting, the role of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, or general coral reef conservation issues. Advance public comments should be submitted by January 29, 2018. Copies of comments given at the meeting can be submitted afterwards in writing to Liza Johnson by email, fax, or mail (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) by March 30, 2018.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Shawn Buckner, Acting Director, Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Department of the Interior.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00398 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4334-63-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR [RR04310000, XXXR0680G1, RA202240000019200] Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System, Santa Fe County, New Mexico AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary—Water and Science, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, announces the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System, as authorized by the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act. The FEIS responds to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement during the comment period that ended on February 27, 2017, and identifies Alternative E as the preferred alternative for the Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System.

    DATES:

    The Department of the Interior will complete a Record of Decision identifying the actions that will be implemented no sooner than 30 days after publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    The FEIS is available for viewing on the following websites: http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/eis.html or www.pojoaquebasineis.com. Compact disc copies may be obtained by contacting Ms. Sarah Branum, Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque Area Office, 555 Broadway NE, Suite 100, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102; or via email to [email protected] Please see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for additional locations where the FEIS is available.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Sarah Branum, Environmental Project Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, [email protected], (505) 462-3591. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above-named individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) prepared the FEIS in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Indian Health Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pueblo de San Ildefonso, Pueblo of Nambé, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico Department of Transportation, Santa Fe County, and the City of Santa Fe. The FEIS has been updated according to public comments received during the 45-day Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) public review period (January 13-February 27, 2017) and other project updates. A summary of changes between the DEIS and FEIS is included in Chapter 1 of the FEIS.

    Background: The Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System (RWS) is described in and authorized by the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act (Title VI of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010; Public Law 111-291, Title VI; 124 Stat. 3065) (“Settlement Act”). The Settlement Act authorizes and ratifies the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement), dated January 19, 2006, as conformed to the Settlement Act and amendments. The settlement parties are the United States; the State of New Mexico; Santa Fe County; City of Santa Fe; Pueblo de San Ildefonso, Pueblo of Nambé, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Pueblo of Tesuque (Settlement Pueblos); and other individuals. The Settlement Agreement resolves the water rights claims of the Settlement Pueblos.

    Among other provisions, the RWS and 2,220 acre-feet per year of new water supply to the basin are included in the Settlement Agreement in exchange for the Pueblos agreeing to reduce their claims to water within the basin and to limit their priority calls against existing non-Pueblo water users. The Settlement Agreement also addresses funding for other water-related projects on the Settlement Pueblos.

    Proposed Federal Action: The Secretary of the Interior, through Reclamation, proposes to plan, design, and construct a regional water system in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, consisting of water diversion from the Rio Grande and water treatment facilities on the Pueblo de San Ildefonso, along with storage tanks and transmission and distribution pipelines that are necessary to supply up to 4,000 acre-feet of water annually to customers in the Pojoaque Basin.

    Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Federal Action: The purpose of the proposed action is to reliably provide a firm, safe supply of treated drinking water for distribution in the Pojoaque Basin, in compliance with the Settlement Act. The need for action is to reduce reliance on groundwater in the Pojoaque Basin and to allow the Settlement Pueblos to receive a portion of the water provided under the Settlement Act. The proposed action would also enable the Settlement Pueblos to use funding made available in the Settlement Act for certain water-related infrastructure improvements, if requested. This funding can be requested prior to substantial completion of the RWS and, if approved by the Secretary, used for water-related improvements that would be more cost effective when implemented in conjunction with RWS construction (Settlement Act, Section 615[d][7][A][ii]).

    The FEIS Analyzes Five Alternatives: The FEIS assesses the potential environmental effects of five alternatives for the RWS. These include the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), and four action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, and E) that vary in six main components or project elements:

    1. Firm, reliable water supply.

    2. Primary source water collection.

    3. Water treatment.

    4. Short-term storage.

    5. Water transmission and distribution system, including pipelines, pumping plants, forebay tanks, and other associated facilities.

    6. Electrical power service.

    Alternative A: The No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative is the “no build” alternative. Under this alternative, the RWS would not be constructed, the Settlement Agreement would be nullified, and Aamodt litigation over water rights claims would likely resume. A firm, reliable water supply would not be provided to residents of the Pojoaque Basin. Under the No Action Alternative, the benefits of the proposed RWS would not be realized. Use of domestic wells would continue to reduce groundwater and surface water supplies in the Pojoaque Basin. The Pueblos would continue to rely on their existing separate water systems, rather than integrating their systems into one regional system.

    Alternative B: Alternative B incorporates the RWS facilities and components described in a 2008 Engineering Report prepared by HKM Engineering, Inc., as updated through surveys and public input. The HKM Engineering Report served as the preliminary RWS concept for the Settlement Act. Under this alternative, the RWS would consist of these components:

    1. The firm, reliable water supply would be provided by diverting surface flows from the Rio Grande, supplemented by operational planning and scheduling of San Juan-Chama Project water supplies, as well as one of the following three backup aquifer storage and recovery water supply options:

    • Three deep injection and recovery wells for injecting raw or treated surface water into an aquifer and recovering it for use in the RWS; or

    • Three shallow injection and recovery wells for injecting raw or treated surface water into an aquifer and recovering it for use in the RWS; or

    • Three shallow passive infiltration reaches and recovery wells for infiltrating raw surface water into an aquifer and recovering it for use in the RWS.

    2. A side-channel surface diversion structure and pumping plant with a sediment removal and return system on the east bank of the Rio Grande on Pueblo de San Ildefonso lands, just north of the Otowi Bridge.

    3. A water treatment plant and pumping plant on the Pueblo de San Ildefonso on the south side of State Highway 502, approximately 0.75 mile east of the Otowi Bridge.

    4. Eleven new short-term storage tanks in addition to 13 existing storage tanks.

    5. A water transmission and distribution system including approximately 194 miles of pipelines, seven pumping plants, and pressure-reducing and flow-control valves.

    6. Approximately 15 miles of new electrical distribution lines.

    Alternative C: Under this alternative, the RWS would consist of the following major components:

    1. The firm, reliable water supply would be provided by collecting flows from beneath and adjacent to the Rio Grande (the hyporheic zone), supplemented by operational planning and scheduling of San Juan-Chama Project water supplies.

    2. A parallel river interceptor drain in the alluvium to collect water from below the water table in the bosque on the east side of the Rio Grande north of the Otowi Bridge.

    3. A water treatment plant on the eastern portion of the Pueblo de San Ildefonso, on the east side of County Road 101D, near the El Rancho power substation.

    4. Eleven new short-term storage tanks in addition to 13 existing storage tanks.

    5. A water transmission and distribution system including approximately 189 miles of pipelines, one surge tank, six pumping plants, and pressure-reducing and flow-control valves.

    6. Approximately 7 miles of new electrical distribution lines supplemented by distributed solar generation.

    Alternative D: Under Alternative D, the RWS would consist of the following major components:

    1. The firm, reliable water supply would be provided by collecting flows from the hyporheic zone of the Rio Grande, supplemented by operational planning and scheduling of San Juan-Chama Project water supplies.

    2. An infiltration gallery (an estimated 180 horizontal drains to collect water from below the water table) on the east bank of the Rio Grande.

    3. A water treatment plant on the eastern portion of the Pueblo de San Ildefonso, on the east side of County Road 101D, near the El Rancho power substation.

    4. Sixteen new short-term storage tanks in addition to 13 existing tanks.

    5. A water transmission and distribution system, including approximately 187 miles of pipelines, one surge tank, six pumping plants, and pressure-reducing and flow-control valves.

    6. Approximately 7 miles of new electrical distribution lines, with solar-ready facilities.

    Alternative E: Preferred Alternative: Under this alternative, the RWS would consist of the following major components:

    1. The firm, reliable water supply would be provided by collecting flows from the hyporheic zone of the Rio Grande and supplementing it with operational planning and scheduling of San Juan-Chama Project water supplies; emergency use wells would allow water to be withdrawn during emergencies lasting longer than two days that cannot be supplied by short-term storage tanks.

    2. Four horizontal radial well collectors to divert water from below the water table on the east bank of the Rio Grande.

    3. A water treatment plant located on the west side of County Road 101D, north of State Highway 502.

    4. Seven new short-term storage tanks, in addition to 14 existing storage tanks.

    5. A water transmission and distribution system, including approximately 151 miles of pipelines, one surge tank, 6 pumping plants, and pressure-reducing and flow-control valves.

    6. Approximately 7 miles of new overhead and buried electrical distribution lines, with solar-ready facilities.

    Connected Actions: The FEIS also includes analyses of three connected actions: (1) The Rio Pojoaque irrigation improvement project, (2) the Pueblo de San Ildefonso future projects which consist of wastewater system improvements and water distribution infrastructure, and (3) the Rio Tesuque channel modification project. Each of the connected actions have been analyzed in the FEIS to the extent that the details of the projects have been developed.

    Copies of the FEIS: The FEIS may be viewed at:

    • Natural Resources Library, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Main Interior Building, Washington, DC 20240-0001.

    • Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Public Affairs Office, 125 South State Street, Room 8100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138.

    • Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque Area Office, 555 Broadway NE, Suite 100, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102.

    • Santa Fe County Pojoaque Satellite Office, 5 West Gutierrez, Suite 9, Pojoaque, New Mexico 87506 (in the Pojoaque Pueblo Plaza).

    • Santa Fe Public Library, 145 Washington Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501.

    • New Mexico State Library, 1209 Camino Carlos Rey, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507.

    • Santa Fe Community College Library, 6401 Richards Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508.

    Public Disclosure of Comments: Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in any correspondence, you should be aware that your entire correspondence—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your correspondence to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: December 20, 2017. Andrea Travnicek, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Exercising the Authority of the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00427 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4332-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [17X.LLID957000.L14400000.BJ0000.241A.4500117485] Filing of Plats of Survey: Idaho AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho, in 30 days from the date of this publication.

    Boise Meridian, Idaho T. 11 N., R. 17 E., Section 25, accepted December 14, 2017 T. 13 N., R. 41 E., Sections 10, 11 and 12, accepted December 14, 2017 T. 8 N., R. 22 E., Section 5, accepted December 14, 2017 T. 20 N., R. 22 E., Section 6, accepted December 14, 2017 T. 16 N., R. 43 E., Section 33, accepted December 14, 2017 T. 7 N., R. 23 E., Section 3, accepted December 14, 2017 T. 9 S., R. 40 E., Section 1, accepted December 14, 2017
    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709, upon required payment.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Timothy A. Quincy, (208) 373-3981 Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709-1657. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with Mr. Quincy. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice with the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho, Bureau of Land Management. The protest must identify the plat(s) of survey that the person or party wishes to protest and contain all reasons and evidence in support of the protest. The protest must be filed before the scheduled date of official filing for the plat(s) of survey being protested. Any protest filed after the scheduled date of official filing will be untimely and will not be considered. A protest is considered filed on the date it is received by the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho during regular business hours; if received after regular business hours, a protest will be considered filed the next business day. If a protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day following dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a protest, you should be aware that the documents you submit, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Timothy A. Quincy, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00459 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-AK-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation [RR83570000, 189R5065C6, RX.59389832.1009676; OMB Control Number 1006-0028] Agency Information Collection Activities; Recreation Visitor Use Survey AGENCY:

    Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), are proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 13, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Jerome Jackson, Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Policy and Administration, 84-57000, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225-0007; or by email to [email protected] Please reference OMB Control Number 1006-0028 in the subject line of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information about this ICR, contact Jerome Jackson by email at [email protected], or by telephone at (303) 445-2712.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, or continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

    We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of Reclamation; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might Reclamation enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might Reclamation minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Abstract: Reclamation is responsible for recreation development at all of its reservoirs. Presently, there are over 200 designated recreation areas on our lands within the 17 Western States hosting approximately 30 million visitors annually. As a result, we must be able to respond to emerging trends, changes in the demographic profile of users, changing values, needs, wants, and desires, and conflicts between user groups. Statistically valid and up-to-date data derived from the user is essential to developing and providing recreation programs relevant to today's visitor. Reclamation is requesting re-approval for the collection of data from recreational users on Reclamation lands and waterbodies. To meet our needs for the collection of visitor use data, we will be requesting OMB to authorize a two-part request: survey questions for our regional offices to choose from, and a survey form template. This will allow for a custom designed survey instrument to fit a specific activity or recreation site. The custom designed survey would be created by extracting questions from the approved list of survey questions that are applicable to the recreation area and issue being evaluated. Only questions included in the pre-approved list of survey questions will be used.

    Title of Collection: Recreation Visitor Use Survey.

    OMB Control Number: 1006-0028.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Respondents to the surveys will be members of the public engaged in recreational activities on Reclamation lands and waterbodies. Visitors will primarily consist of local residents, people from large metropolitan areas in the vicinity of the lake/reservoir, and people from out of state.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 556.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 556.

    Estimated Completion Time per Response: 20 minutes per survey. (An average of 20 questions will be used on each survey; each question will take 1 minute to complete on average.)

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 185.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion. Varies by survey.

    Total Estimated Annual Non-hour Burden cost: 0.00

    In addition, there are an estimated 140 number of contacts who will not respond. These non-respondents account for 1 total burden hour per year.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).

    Dated: December 11, 2017. Ruth Welch, Director, Policy and Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00449 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4332-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Numbers Under the Paperwork Reduction Act AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice; announcement of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of information collection requirements.

    SUMMARY:

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration announces that OMB extended its approval for a number of information collection requirements found in a number of OSHA's standards and regulations. OSHA sought approval of these requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), and, as required by that Act, is announcing the approval numbers and expiration dates for these requirements and regulations.

    DATES:

    This notice is applicable January 12, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Theda Kenney, [email protected], or Charles McCormick, [email protected]; telephone (202) 693-2222.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In a series of Federal Register notices, the Agency announced its requests to OMB to renew its current extensions of approvals for various information collection (paperwork) requirements in its safety and health standards pertaining to general industry, shipyard employment, and the construction industry (i.e., 29 CFR parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1919, and 1926), and regulations pertaining to the OSHA-7 Form, Occupational Safety and Health Administration Grantee Quarterly Progress Report, and Requirements for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Training Institute Education Centers Program and Occupational Safety and Health Administration Outreach Training Program. In these Federal Register announcements, the Agency provided 60-day comment periods for the public to respond to OSHA's burden hour and cost estimates.

    In accordance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), OMB approved these information collection requirements. The table below provides the following information for each of these requirements approved by OMB: The title of the Federal Register notice; the Federal Register reference (date, volume, and leading page); OMB's Control Number; and the new expiration date.

    Title of the information collection request Date of Federal Register
  • publication, Federal Register reference,
  • and OSHA docket No.
  • OMB control
  • No.
  • Expiration date
    Anhydrous Ammonia Storage and Handling (29 CFR 1910.111) April 25, 2017, 82 FR 19087, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0050 1218-0208 10/31/2020 Concrete and Masonry Construction (29 CFR part 1926, subpart Q) February 24, 2017, 82 FR 11658, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0040 1218-0095 09/30/2020 Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Standard for Construction and General Industry and Electrical Protective Equipment Standards for Construction and General Industry April 5, 2017, 82 FR 16627, Docket No. OSHA-2017-0005 1218-0253 10/31/2020 Ethylene Oxide (EtO) (29 CFR 1910.1047) April 5, 2017, 82 FR 16629, Docket No. OSHA-2009-0035 1218-0108 09/30/2020 Gear Certification (29 CFR part 1919) December 22, 2016, 81 FR 93963, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0042 1218-0003 08/31/2020 Hazard Communication (29 CFR 1910.1200, 1915.1200, 1917.28, 1918.90, 1926.59, and 1928.21) April 27, 2015, 80 FR 23300, Docket No. OSHA-2009-0014 1218-0072 10/31/2020 Hydrostatic Testing Provision of the Standard on Portable Fire Extinguishers (29 CFR 1910.157(f)(16)) May 23, 2017, 82 FR 23609, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0025 1218-0238 11/30/2020 Logging Operations (29 CFR 1910.266) March 9, 2017, 82 FR 13141, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0041 1218-0198 09/30/2020 Manlifts (29 CFR 1910.6(e)) February 14, 2017, 82 FR 10588, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0051 1218-0226 10/31/2020 Notice of Alleged Safety or Health Hazards, OSHA-7 Form April 24, 2017, 82 FR 18932, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0056 1218-0064 11/30/2020 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Grantee Quarterly Progress Report May 22, 2017, 82 FR 23315, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0021 1218-0100 11/30/2020 Overhead and Gantry Cranes (29 CFR 1910.179) April 25, 2017, 82 FR 19090, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0023 1218-0224 11/30/2020 Portable Fire Extinguishers (Annual Maintenance Certification Record) (29 CFR 1910.157(e)(3)) April 24, 2017, 82 FR 18930, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0039 1218-0238 11/30/2020 Presence Sensing Device Initiation (PSDI) (29 CFR 1910.217(h)) December 22, 2016, 81 FR 93962, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0009 1218-0143 06/30/2020 Requirements for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Training Institute Education Centers Program and Occupational Safety and Health Administration Outreach Training Program April 25, 2017, 82 FR 19089, Docket No. OSHA-2009-0022 1218-0262 10/31/2020 Rigging Equipment for Material Handling (29 CFR 1926.251) April 24, 2017, 82 FR 18934, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0038 1218-0233 10/31/2020 Underground Construction (29 CFR 1926.800) June 20, 2017, 82 FR 28098, Docket No. OSHA-2011-0029 1218-0067 11/30/2020 Walking-Working Surfaces (29 CFR part 1910, subpart D) March 2, 2016, 81 FR 10918, Docket No. OSHA-2013-0002 1218-0199 02/29/2020

    In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.5(b), an agency cannot conduct, sponsor, or require a response to a collection of information unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number and the Agency informs respondents that they need not respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.

    Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on January 8, 2018. Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00391 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2017-0012] National Fall Safety Stand-Down To Prevent Falls in Construction; Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the National Fall Safety Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in Construction.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by March 13, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments.

    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.

    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service: When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2017-0012, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier services) are accepted during the Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA docket number (OSHA-2017-0012) for the Information Collection Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    Docket: To read or download comments or other materials in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from the website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Theda Kenney or Charles McCormick, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of effort in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).

    Falls are a leading cause of death for employees. According to 2015 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, falls accounted for 350 of the 937 construction fatalities, and 648 of the 4,836 fatalities in all recorded industries. The National Fall Safety Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in Construction raises fall hazard awareness across the country in an effort to stop fall fatalities and injuries. The Stand-Down is the biggest safety outreach event ever conducted by the Agency. OSHA has collaborated with countless industry leaders and employers over the last four years to reach over 7.5 million workers during Stand-Downs.

    II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

    • Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

    • The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply. For example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.

    III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB approve the information collection requirements contained in the National Fall Safety Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in Construction (29 U.S.C. 669). OSHA is proposing a burden hour estimate of seven hundred sixty-five (765) hours. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.

    Type of Review: New.

    Title: National Fall Safety Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in Construction.

    OMB Control Number: 1218-0NEW.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.

    Number of Respondents: 4,500.

    Frequency of Responses: Annually.

    Average Time Per Response: OSHA estimates an employer will take 10 minutes to complete the survey.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 765.

    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $37,118.

    IV. Public Participation—Submission of Comments on This Notice and Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax) at (202) 693-1648; or (3) by hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other materials must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2017-0012). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments.

    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).

    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through this website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and access the docket is available at the website's “User Tips” link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the website, and for assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions.

    V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on January 8, 2018. Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00394 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2010-0057] Telecommunications; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Request for public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in its Telecommunications Standard.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by March 13, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments.

    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.

    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service: When using this method, you must submit your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2010-0057, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted during the Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the OSHA docket number (OSHA-2010-0057) for the Information Collection Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from the website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at the phone number below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Theda Kenney, or Charles McCormick, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone (202) 693-2222.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).

    Under the paperwork requirements specified by paragraph (c) of the Standard, an employer must certify that his or her workers have been trained as specified by the training provision of the Standard. Specifically, employers must prepare a certification record which includes the identity of the person trained, the signature of the employer or the person who conducted the training, and the date the training was completed. The certification record shall be prepared at the completion of training and shall be maintained on file for the duration of the employee's employment. The information collected will be used by employers as well as by compliance officers to determine whether employees have been trained according to the requirements set forth in 29 CFR 1910.268(c).

    II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

    • Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

    • The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply. For example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.

    III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Standard on Telecommunications (29 CFR 1910.268). The burden hours have decreased based on the reduced number of telecommunication workers installing and repairing lines and equipment from 215,810 to 205,360. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to decrease the existing burden hour estimate for the collection of information requirements specified by the Standard from 4,532 to 3,765 (difference of 767 hours). The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Title: Telecommunications (29 CFR 1910.268).

    OMB Control Number: 1218-0225.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.

    Number of Respondents: 35,742.

    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.

    Average Time Per Response: Various.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 3,765.

    Total Responses: 205,360.

    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

    IV. Public Participation—Submission of Comments on This Notice and Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other materials must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number (Docket No. OSHA-2010-0057) for the ICR. You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments.

    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).

    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information, such as social security numbers and dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from this website.

    All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and access the docket is available at the website's “User Tips” link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available from the website, and for assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions.

    V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on January 8, 2018. Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00392 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2011-0194] Cotton Dust Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Request for public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Cotton Dust Standard.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by March 13, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments.

    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.

    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service: When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2011-0194, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the OSHA docket number (OSHA-2011-0194) for the Information Collection Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from the website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at the phone number below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charles McCormick or Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone (202) 693-2222.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).

    The information collection requirements specified in the Cotton Dust Standard protect workers from the adverse health effects that may result from their exposure to cotton dust. The major information collection requirements of the Cotton Dust Standard include: Performing exposure monitoring, including initial, periodic, and additional monitoring; notifying each worker of their exposure monitoring results either in writing or by posting; implementing a written compliance program; and establishing a respiratory protection program in accord with OSHA's Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134).

    II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

    • Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

    • The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply. For example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.

    III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting to decrease its current burden hours from 21,549 to 9,532 hours, a total decrease of 12,017 hours. The decrease was due to a decrease in the number of exposed employees from 11,786 to 4,957. In addition, there was a $1,555,336 decrease in the overall cost of medical exams (from $2,896,328 to $1,340,992), as a result of a decrease in the number of medical exams.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Title: Cotton Dust Standard (29 CFR 1910.1043).

    OMB Control Number: 1218-0061.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.

    Number of Respondents: 5,474.

    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.

    Total Responses: 25,712.

    Average Time per Response: Various.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 9,532 hours.

    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

    IV. Public Participation—Submission of Comments on This Notice and Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0194). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments.

    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).

    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from this website.

    All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and access the docket is available at the website's “User Tips” link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available from the website and for assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions.

    V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on January 8, 2018. Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00393 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Request for Information AGENCY:

    Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

    ACTION:

    Request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Chief Statistician of the United States and the Statistical and Science Policy Branch (SSP) in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) seek to establish priorities and coordinate research efforts across the Federal Statistical System to focus on improving federal statistics. In particular, a priority has been placed on using new techniques and methodologies based on combining data from multiple sources. To support this effort, information is requested on: (1) Current and emerging techniques for linking and analyzing combined data; (2) on-going research on methods to describe the quality of statistical products that result from these techniques; (3) computational frameworks and systems for conducting such work; (4) privacy or confidentiality issues that may arise from combining such data; and (5) suggestions for additional research in those or related areas. While there are regulatory and statutory constraints on combining data within the federal government, the information sought concerns how best to combine data once they are accessed appropriately and successfully. The intent is for the research to inform the adoption of revised statistical standards regarding the use of such combined data for federal purposes, including but not limited to the production of principal key economic indicators and demographic statistical products.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments within 60 days of publication date.

    ADDRESSES:

    All responses must be submitted electronically to the following email address: [email protected]

    You will receive an electronic confirmation acknowledging receipt of your response, but will not receive individualized feedback.

    Response to this Request for Information (RFI) is voluntary. Any personal identifiers (e.g., names, addresses, email addresses, etc.) will be available to the public when responses are compiled. Proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should not be included in your response.

    This RFI is for information and planning purposes only. It should not be construed as a solicitation or as an obligation on the part of the Federal Government, the Office of Management and Budget, the Chief Statistician of the United States or SSP. OMB does not intend to make any awards based on responses to this RFI or to otherwise pay for the preparation of any information submitted or for the Government's use of such information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bob Sivinski, Statistician, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building Room 9257, 725 17th St. NW, Washington, DC 20006; telephone: (202) 395-1205 (this is not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The federal government produces a wide array of statistical data that are a critical national resource. The use of these data are central to our democracy and include: Supporting constitutional duties, such as reapportionment of the House of Representatives; allocating resources to states, localities, tribes, businesses and individuals; supporting good planning at all levels of federal, state, local and tribal governments; describing our economic wellbeing; providing evidence to address critical problems facing our nation, such as opioid addiction; supporting informed public and private decision making that will create jobs and improve our infrastructure; and creating opportunities for local communities.

    These statistics use well-tested and documented processes that rely on censuses, sample surveys or administrative records. However, the federal government is facing a number of challenges for these traditional methods supporting informational needs of the future. It is well documented 1 that survey response rates are declining, and costs are rising. At the same time, data users increasingly demand much more timely and granular information, such as local rather than national data. To meet the needs of the many stakeholders and policy-makers who depend on high quality, reliable federal statistical data, the statistical agencies must take advantage of new technologies and data sources to both reduce costs and make improvements. We believe there are many opportunities to increase the efficiency of the statistical system and reduce the response burden on people and businesses.

    The Chief Statistician of the United States and SSP are well aware of these issues and are seeking to change the paradigm underlying the production of these statistics. The Federal Statistical System must adopt new methods and standards to provide statistics that continue to meet the data needs of our nation for the 21st century. Given the existing environment, an important component of this transformation will be based on combining data from multiple sources to produce statistical products and information.

    Important work in the area of combining data from multiple sources has been conducted; see, e.g. National Research Council (2017; www.nap.edu/catalog/24652/innovations-in-federal-statistics-combining-data-sources-while-protecting-privacy); the related information provided through: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/CNSTAT/DBASSE_170268; and references cited therein. However, much more research must be carried out before the Federal Statistical System can adopt these techniques for the production of its key statistics. The Chief Statistician is therefore seeking to set priorities and coordinate Federal Statistical System resources to focus on such a program of continued research and therefore is requesting relevant information.

    Request for Public Comment

    This RFI seeks to identify published works, current and planned research, and descriptions of best practices taking place in private sector firms and academic institutions related to combining data from multiple sources to produce statistical data and products. The RFI is also seeking suggestions for new areas of research that the federal government should pursue in order to adopt new methods for combining data from multiple sources to produce statistics. These include but are not limited to: Computational environments for accessing and processing multiple data sources; measurement and documentation of the quality of statistical data derived from combining multiple data sources; new techniques for harmonizing and linking multiple data sources; issues regarding privacy and disclosure avoidance, standards for describing the fitness for use of key statistics based on combined data sources; and principles for curating and disseminating these new data and associated products. In addition, descriptions of and citations to papers or projects where data have been combined to do analyses that highlight sources of data that may be useful for government data integration, or how new data sources can be helpful in assessing how federal statistics can be better structured and presented to increase their value to the nation, are welcome. Finally, the RFI is seeking information on tested best practices related to securing partnerships across data holders and providing access to secondary users.

    The Chief Statistician of the United States and SSP plan to consider this input in focusing Federal Statistical System research efforts, including the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, on a program that informs policy and provides guidance on the Federal use of data combined from multiple sources.

    Footnotes 1. National Research Council. 2013. Nonresponse in Social Science Surveys: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18293. Nancy Potok, Chief, Statistical and Science Policy, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00400 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3110-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2018-0001] Sunshine Act Meeting Notice DATES:

    Weeks of January 15, 22, 29, February 5, 12, 19, 2018.

    PLACE:

    Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

    STATUS:

    Public and Closed.

    Week of January 15, 2018 Thursday, January 18, 2018 9:00 a.m. Strategic Programmatic Overview of the Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste and Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Business Lines (Public Meeting); (Contact: Damaris Marcano: 301-415-7328)

    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.

    Week of January 22, 2018—Tentative Tuesday, January 23, 2018 9:00 a.m. Hearing on Construction Permit for Northwest Medical Isotopes Production Facility: Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act Proceeding (Public Meeting); (Contact: Michael Balazik: 301-415-2856)

    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.

    Thursday, January 25, 2018 10:00 a.m. Strategic Programmatic Overview of the New Reactors Business Line (Public Meeting); (Contact: Donna Williams: 301-415-1322).

    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.

    Week of January 29, 2018—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 29, 2018.

    Week of February 5, 2018—Tentative Thursday, February 8, 2018 9:00 a.m. Discussion of Potential Changes to the 10 CFR 2.206 Enforcement Petition Process (Public Meeting); (Contact: Doug Broaddus: 301-415-8124).

    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.

    Week of February 12, 2018—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 12, 2018.

    Week of February 19, 2018—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 19, 2018.

    The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at [email protected]

    The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/schedule.html.

    The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large print), please notify Kimberly Meyer-Chambers, NRC Disability Program Manager, at 301-287-0739, by videophone at 240-428-3217, or by email at [email protected] Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email [email protected] or [email protected]

    Dated: January 10, 2018. Denise L. McGovern, Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00629 Filed 1-10-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on APR1400; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on APR1400 will hold meetings on January 24-25, 2018, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B1, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    The meetings will be open to public attendance with the exception of portions that may be closed to protect information that is proprietary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meetings shall be as follows:

    Wednesday, January 24, 2018, 1:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. and Thursday, January 25, 2018 8:30 a.m. until 12:00 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will review APR1400 design control document Chapter 4 (Reactor), Chapter 14.1 (Specific Information to be Addressed for the Initial Plant Test Program) & 14.2 (Initial Plant Test Program), Chapter 16 (Technical Specifications), and Chapter 18 (Human Factors Engineering). The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.

    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Christopher Brown (Telephone 301-415-7111 or Email: [email protected]) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided to the DFO thirty minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the DFO one day before the meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the DFO with a CD containing each presentation at least thirty minutes before the meeting. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 4, 2017 (82 FR 46312).

    Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs. Information regarding topics to be discussed, changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained from the website cited above or by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with these references if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.

    If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. After registering with Security, please contact Ms. Kendra Freeland (Telephone 301-415-6207) to be escorted to the meeting room.

    Dated: January 8, 2018. Mark L. Banks, Chief, Technical Support Branch, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00424 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-82458; File No. SR-ISE-2017-111] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Establish a Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program January 8, 2018.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on December 21, 2017, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to establish a Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program on a pilot basis, for an initial period of twelve months from the date of approval of this proposed rule change.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at http://ise.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of this rule filing is to add new Supplementary Material .07 to ISE Rule 2009, Terms of Index Options Contracts, to permit the listing and trading, on a pilot basis, of p.m.-settled options on broad-based indexes with nonstandard expiration dates for an initial period of twelve months (the “Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program” or “Pilot Program”) from the date of approval of this proposed rule change. The Pilot Program would permit both weekly expirations (“Weekly Expirations”) and end of month (“EOM”) expirations as explained below. Contract terms for the Weekly Expirations and EOM expirations will be similar to those of the a.m. settled broad-based index options, except that the exercise settlement value will be based on the index value derived from the closing prices of component stocks.

    Weekly Expirations

    The Exchange proposes to add new Supplementary Material .07(a), Weekly Expirations, to Rule 2009. Under the proposed new rule the Exchange would be permitted to open for trading Weekly Expirations on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on any Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (other than the third Friday-of-the-month or days that coincide with an EOM expiration).

    The maximum number of expirations that could be listed for each Weekly Expiration (i.e., a Monday expiration, Wednesday expiration, or Friday expiration, as applicable) in a given class would be the same as the maximum number of expirations permitted for standard options on the same broad-based index. Weekly Expirations would not need to be for consecutive Monday, Wednesday, or Friday expirations as applicable. However, the expiration date of a non-consecutive expiration would not be permitted beyond what would be considered the last expiration date if the maximum number of expirations were listed consecutively.

    Weekly Expirations that are first listed in a given class could expire up to four weeks from the actual listing date. If the last trading day of a month were a Monday, Wednesday, or Friday and the Exchange were to list EOMs and Weekly Expirations as applicable in a given class, the Exchange would list an EOM instead of a Weekly Expiration in the given class. Other expirations in the same class would not be counted as part of the maximum number of Weekly Expirations for a broad-based index class. If the Exchange were not open for business on a respective Monday, the normally Monday expiring Weekly Expirations would expire on the following business day. If the Exchange were not open for business on a respective Wednesday or Friday, the normally Wednesday or Friday expiring Weekly Expirations would expire on the previous business day.

    End of Month (“EOM”) Expirations

    Pursuant to proposed ISE Rule 2009 Supplementary Material .07(b), End of Month (“EOM”) Expirations, the Exchange could open for trading EOMs on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on last trading day of the month. EOMs would be subject to all provisions of Rule 2009 and treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month. However, the EOMs would be P.M.-settled and new series in EOMs could be added up to and including on the expiration date for an expiring EOM.

    The maximum number of expirations that could be listed for EOMs in a given class would be the same as the maximum number of expirations permitted for standard options on the same broad-based index. EOM expirations would not need to be for consecutive end of month expirations. However, the expiration date of a non-consecutive expiration may not be beyond what would be considered the last expiration date if the maximum number of expirations were listed consecutively. EOMs that are first listed in a given class could expire up to four weeks from the actual listing date. Other expirations would not be counted as part of the maximum numbers of EOM expirations for a broad-based index class.

    Contract Terms Trading Rules

    Weekly Expirations and EOMs would be subject to the same rules that currently govern the trading of standard monthly broad-based index options, including sales practice rules, margin requirements, and floor trading procedures. Contract terms for Weekly Expirations and EOMs would be the same as those for standard monthly broad-based index options. Since Weekly Expirations and EOMs will be a new type of series, and not a new class, the Exchange proposes that Weekly Expirations and EOMs shall be aggregated for any applicable reporting and other requirements.3 Pursuant to proposed new Supplementary Material .07(d) of Rule 2009, transactions in Weekly Expirations and EOMs could be effected on the Exchange between the hours of 9:30 a.m. (Eastern Time) and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time).

    3See Rule 2006(a)(13) which sets forth the reporting requirements for certain market indexes that do not have position limits, including NDX. The Exchange is adding Nonstandard Expirations to Rule 2004(d) to reflect the aggregation requirement. The Exchange notes that the proposed aggregation is consistent with the aggregation requirements for other types of option series (e.g. quarterly expiring options) that are listed on the Exchange and which do not expires on the customary “third Friday”.

    The Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the Exchange and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any additional traffic associated with the listing of the maximum number nonstandard expirations permitted under the Pilot.

    Pilot Program

    As stated above, this proposal is to establish a Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program for broad-based index options on a pilot basis, for an initial period of twelve months from the date of approval of this proposed rule change. If the Exchange were to propose an extension of the Pilot or should the Exchange propose to make the Pilot permanent, the Exchange would submit a filing proposing such amendments to the Pilot.

    Further, any positions established under the Pilot would not be impacted by the expiration of the Pilot. For example, if the Exchange lists a Weekly Expiration or EOM that expires after the Pilot expires (and is not extended) then those positions would continue to exist. However, any further trading in those series would be restricted to transactions where at least one side of the trade is a closing transaction.

    As part of the Pilot, the Exchange will submit a Pilot report to the Commission at least two months prior to the expiration date of the Pilot (the “annual report”). The annual report will contain an analysis of volume, open interest and trading patterns. In addition, for series that exceed certain minimum open interest parameters, the annual report will provide analysis of index price volatility and, if needed, share trading activity. The annual report will be provided to the Commission on a confidential basis.

    Analysis of Volume and Open Interest

    For all Weekly Expirations and EOM series, the annual report will contain the following volume and open interest data for each broad-based index overlying Weekly Expiration and EOM options:

    (1) Monthly volume aggregated for all Weekly Expiration and EOM series,

    (2) Volume in Weekly Expiration and EOM series aggregated by expiration date,

    (3) Month-end open interest aggregated for all Weekly Expiration and EOM series,

    (4) Month-end open interest for EOM series aggregated by expiration date and open interest for Weekly Expiration series aggregated by expiration date,

    (5) Ratio of monthly aggregate volume in Weekly Expiration and EOM series to total monthly class volume, and

    (6) Ratio of month-end open interest in EOM series to total month-end class open interest and ratio of open interest in each Weekly Expiration series to total class open interest.

    In addition, the annual report will contain the information noted above for standard Expiration Friday, AM-settled series, if applicable, for the period covered in the pilot report as well as for the six-month period prior to the initiation of the pilot.

    Upon request by the SEC, the Exchange will provide a data file containing: (1) Weekly Expiration and EOM option volume data aggregated by series, and (2) Weekly Expiration open interest for each expiring series and EOM month-end open interest for expiring series.

    Monthly Analysis of Weekly Expiration and EOM Trading Patterns

    In the annual report, the Exchange also proposes to identify Weekly Expiration and EOM trading patterns by undertaking a time series analysis of open interest in Weekly Expiration and EOM series aggregated by expiration date compared to open interest in near-term standard Expiration Friday A.M.-settled series in order to determine whether users are shifting positions from standard series to Weekly Expiration and EOM series. In addition, to the extent that data on other weekly or monthly P.M. settled products from other exchanges is publicly available, the report will also compare open interest with these options in order to determine whether users are shifting positions from other weekly or monthly P.M. settled products to the Weekly Expiration and EOM series. Declining open interest in standard series or the weekly or monthly P.M.-settled products of other exchanges accompanied by rising open interest in Weekly Expiration and EOM series would suggest that users are shifting positions.

    Provisional Analysis of Index Price Volatility and Share Trading Activity

    For each Weekly Expiration and EOM expiration that has open interest that exceeds certain minimum thresholds, the annual report will contain the following analysis related to index price changes and, if needed, underlying share trading volume at the close on expiration dates:

    (1) A comparison of index price changes at the close of trading on a given expiration date with comparable price changes from a control sample. The data will include a calculation of percentage price changes for various time intervals and compare that information to the respective control sample. Raw percentage price change data as well as percentage price change data normalized for prevailing market volatility, as measured by an appropriate index agreed by the Commission and the Exchange, will be provided; and

    (2) if needed, a calculation of share volume for a sample set of the component securities representing an upper limit on share trading that could be attributable to expiring in-the-money Weekly Expiration and EOM expirations. The data, if needed, will include a comparison of the calculated share volume for securities in the sample set to the average daily trading volumes of those securities over a sample period.

    The minimum open interest parameters, control sample, time intervals, method for selecting the component securities, and sample periods will be determined by the Exchange and the Commission.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,4 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,5 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest, by expanding the ability of investors to hedge risks against market movements stemming from economic releases or market events that occur during the month and at the end of the month. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that weekly expirations and EOMs should create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility, and provide customers with the ability to more closely tailor their investment objectives.

    4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intramarket competition as all market participants will be treated in the same manner with respect to Weekly Expirations and EOMs. Additionally, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intermarket competition as market participants are welcome to become members and trade at ISE if they determine that this proposed rule change has made ISE more attractive or favorable. Finally, all options exchanges are free to compete by listing and trading their own broad-based index options with weekly or end of month expirations.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. In particular, the Commission solicits comment on the following:

    • Will the pilot data contemplated in this notice allow the Commission to determine whether the weekly and monthly PM-settled options proposed in this filing have adverse effects on market volatility and the operation of fair and orderly markets in the underlying cash market?

    • Will the pilot data contemplated in this notice allow the Commission to determine whether the weekly and monthly PM-settled options proposed in this filing have adverse effects on liquidity, volume, open interest, trading patterns, and volatility in other option contracts with standard expirations?

    • Will the pilot data contemplated in this notice allow the Commission to determine whether the weekly and monthly PM-settled options proposed in this filing have adverse effects on index price volatility?

    • Will the weekly and monthly PM-settled options proposed in this filing affect the market for options contracts with nonstandard expirations offered by CBOE and Phlx? If so, how? In addition, how would this proposal affect the data and information related to nonstandard expirations that are provided by CBOE and Phlx?

    • What concerns do market participants have related to the proposed Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program? If any, please be specific in describing your concerns. If any, will the pilot data contemplated in this notice allow the Commission to examine whether the concerns are valid?

    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-ISE-2017-111 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-111. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-111, and should be submitted on or before February 2, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.6

    6 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00409 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-82459; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-084] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.13, CBOE Hybrid System Automatic Execution Feature January 8, 2018.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on December 27, 2017, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.4 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The “Exchange proposes to amend its rules related to stop orders.

    (Additions are in Italics; Deletions are [Bracketed]) Cboe Exchange, Inc. Rules Rule 6.13. [CBOE]Cboe Options Hybrid System Automatic Execution Feature

    (a) No change.

    (b) Automatic Execution: Orders eligible for automatic execution through the Cboe Options Hybrid System may be automatically executed in accordance with the provisions of this Rule, Rule 6.13A or 6.14A, as applicable. This section governs automatic executions and split-price automatic executions. The allocation of orders or quotes that automatically execute through the Cboe Options Hybrid System is governed by Rule 6.45.

    (i)-(vi) No change.

    (vii) Stop and Stop-Limit Orders. The System cancels a buy (sell) stop or stop-limit order if the Exchange best bid (offer) at the time the System receives the order is equal to or above (below) the stop price.

    (c) No change.

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The proposed rule change amends Rule 6.13 to modify the automatic handling of stop and stop-limit orders. As defined in Rule 6.53(c), a stop order is a contingency order to buy or sell when the market for a particular option contract reaches a specified price on the Cboe Options floor. A stop order to buy becomes a market order when the option contract trades or is bid at or above the stop price on the Cboe Options floor. A stop order to sell becomes a market order when the option contract trades or is offered at or below the stop-limit price on the Cboe Options floor. A stop-limit order is a contingency order to buy or sell when the market for a particular option contract reaches a specified price. A stop order to buy becomes a limit order when the option contract trades or is bid at or above the stop-limit price. A stop-limit order to sell becomes a limit order when the option contract trades or is offered at or below the stop-limit price.

    The proposed rule change adds Rule 6.13(b)(vii), which states the System cancels a buy (sell) stop or stop-limit order if the Exchange best bid (offer) (“BBO”) at the time the System receives the order is equal to or above (below) the stop price. The purpose of a stop or stop-limit order is for it to become a market or limit order, respectively, after the price in a series reaches the stop price. Therefore, there is an implication the submitting Trading Permit Holder intends for the order to not become a market or limit order, respectively, until after an amount of time passes and the series price changes. If the BBO is above or below, as applicable, the stop price when the System receives a stop or stop-limit order, the order converts immediately to a market or limit order, respectively. This is inconsistent with the purpose of the order and the intentions of the submitting Trading Permit Holder. The Exchange believes if a Trading Permit Holder submitted an order at such a price, there is a strong possibility the order was submitted at that price as an error by the Trading Permit Holder. Pursuant to the proposed rule change, the System will reject a stop or stop-limit order that would otherwise immediately convert to a market or limit order, respectively, based on the BBO, which is consistent with the definitions and purposes of these orders.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.5 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 6 requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 7 requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

    5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    7Id.

    In particular, the proposed rule change will protect investors and the public interest and maintain fair and orderly markets by mitigating potential risks associated with market participants entering stop and stop-limit orders at unintended prices, and risks associated with orders trading at prices that are potentially erroneous, which may likely have resulted from human or operational error. The proposed rule change is consistent with the definitions and purposes of stop and stop-limit orders.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will apply in the same manner to all stop and stop-limit orders Trading Permit Holders submit to the Exchange and will help prevent potentially erroneous executions, which benefits all market participants. Because pursuant to the proposed rule change the System will reject stop and stop-limit orders it receives under certain conditions, the proposed rule change will only impact stop and stop-limit orders Trading Permit Holders submit to the Exchange, based on quotes on the Exchange, and thus will have no impact on intermarket competition.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A) 8 of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 9 thereunder. Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.

    8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2017-084 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2017-084. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2017-084 and should be submitted on or before February 2, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.10

    10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00410 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-82461; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-083] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule January 8, 2018.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on December 26, 2017, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. Footnotes 24 and 25 describe the Market-Maker Trading Permit Sliding Scale and Floor Broker Trading Permit Sliding Scale programs, respectively.

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. Footnotes 24 and 25 describe the Market-Maker Trading Permit Sliding Scale and Floor Broker Trading Permit Sliding Scale programs, respectively.3 Each program requires a Trading Permit Holder to commit in advance to a specific tier that includes a minimum number of eligible Market-Maker Trading Permits or Floor Broker Trading Permits, as applicable, for each calendar. To do so, a Trading Permit Holder must notify the Registration Services Department by December 25th (or the preceding business day if the 25th is not a business day) of the year prior to each year in which the Trading Permit Holder would like to commit to the sliding scale of the tier of eligible Trading Permits committed to by that Trading Permit Holder for that year.

    3 This filing was originally submitted on December 26, 2017 as SR-CBOE-2017-081. SR-CBOE-2017-081 was withdrawn on December 26, 2017 and replaced by SR-CBOE-2017-082. SR-CBOE-2017-082 was withdrawn on December 26, 2017 and replaced by this filing.

    Generally, the Exchange issues a Regulatory Circular to remind Trading Permit Holders of this notification deadline, including a description of how Trading Permit Holders should notify the Registration Services Department. However, for the 2018 sliding scale program, the Exchange was unable to issue a reminder until December 22, 2017, which is the business day prior to December 25, 2017, and thus the notification deadline. To ensure Trading Permit Holders have sufficient time to provide notification to the Exchange regarding their tier commitments for 2018, the Exchange proposes to amend the descriptions of these programs in footnotes 24 and 25 to require Trading Permit Holders to notify the Registration Services Department by December 29th (or the preceding business day if the 29th is not a business day).

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.4 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 5 requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 6 requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. In particular, the proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protects investors and the public interest because it ensures Trading Permit Holders will have sufficient time to notify the Exchange regarding their tier commitments in the Market-Maker and Floor Broker Trading Permit sliding scale programs for 2018, if Trading Permit Holders decide to participate in these programs, and thus take advantage of the benefits of these programs. The change to the commitment deadline is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all Trading Permit Holders will be subject to that same deadline. Trading Permit Holder participation in these programs benefits all market participants, because the lower fees encourage more Market-Makers and Floor Brokers, as applicable, to access the Exchange, which gives market participants more trading options and increased trading activity, volume, and liquidity.

    4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    <